Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Vacated victories

Scope and title

I think finally the title will more appropriately be something along the lines of "Forfeits and vacations" rather than just "vacated victories". The NCAA policy on forfeits is pretty clean, and it's easy to include guidance here too; plus given that the NCAA sometimes vacates victories, and sometimes vacates games, makes the narrow title "vacated victories" confusing and too confining. But rather than clutter up folks' watchlists with another move, I'll hold off on changing anything until the article is done (and we've had a chance to discuss it). JohnInDC (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I'd suggest that we issue another invitation to WikiProject College basketball to participate here, and try to make this an essay that both projects will agree to. cmadler (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we may need to either change the title to NCAA Vacated Victories or include scope for non-NCAA games such as NAIA, NCCAA, and games prior to the founding of the NCAA.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Terminology

Just a note to allow discussion (if needed); I think the term used should be "vacancy" rather than "vacation", as that seems to better match wording used by the NCAA. Thoughts? cmadler (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Vacancy is fine. Both words actually ring kind of flat on the ear, given their more common usages, but sticking to the NCAA's use is, I think, is in the main preferable. JohnInDC (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

In going through the article just now I guess I was using "vacation" to describe the act of vacating a game result, with "vacancy" being the thing that was left over, i.e., the game with the funky result. I did change one instance. I think these are distinct meanings, and that the use in the article is appropriate. That being said, that's just my inner grammarian springing forth and if "vacancy" causes fewer problems then I can live with it. JohnInDC (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Editorial guidelines

I am intending to work a bit more with "anomalies", to set up the problem(s) clearly and then introduce the media-supplied solution smoothly, at least as to series records - I have some ideas there and it's just a matter of the words falling into place. I'm not quite as confident about drafting the actual editorial guidelines, though, because when it comes down to it, I'm not exactly sure what the essay / we should be recommending. This is for the most part the practical problem of coming up with actual, express, "use these words in this format" guidance. (I have included the beginning of a sample infobox, which may be useful as a guide.) In principle, I think:

relevant articles should reflect what the NCAA says the records are, where they do say; along with annotations that clearly indicate how they were changed (i.e. what isn't counted that had been before - the "breadcrumbs");

where the NCAA doesn't maintain the record and / or has said nothing, e.g, series records and streaks, series records should reflect "no contest" (wins and losses both out) and streaks should reflect - well, I'm not sure yet;

all the foregoing should include, somewhere, links to both any relevant substantive articles on the NCAA decision relating to the particular contests, as well as this essay; and

articles reporting historical facts (how many points were scored, who scored them, who "won" the game before the results were changed, etc.) shouldn't be changed, except to report on or link to later problems and the NCAA's action.

I've left it all commented out because I don't think it's yet good enough to become visible, even in an express draft. And at this point I'm not sure where it should be taken anyhow - again, what words, what examples, the rest. So I invite other editors to take a crack at "editorial guidelines" and see if they can improve it. Let's see if the hive mind can come up with something useful there. As for the rest of the article - I'm content to keep playing with that on my own for a bit, if others are content to let me. JohnInDC (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're on the right track. Saying that series records should reflect "no contest" seems to be the direction sportswriters are going. Streaks are problematic. The NCAA doesn't track them, so there's no guidance there. If you'll forgive my saying so, it's still early in the game, and we may want to punt on this. News media often report such streaks as part of their pre-game (usually within the week before) coverage, so as the season progresses, we'll get a better sense of how others are dealing with this. I see several possibilities here:

• The streak is ongoing, but vacancies count as "no contest". Ohio State is on a 6-game winning streak against Michigan; Jim Tressel is on a 4-game losing streak against Eastern Michigan.
• The streak is stopped. For purposes of any winning streak, its as though the next game is the first such game.
• The streak is ongoing, with the vacancy included. Michigan is on a 7-game losing streak against Ohio State.

I think the first option is probably preferable, as it matches the decision on series records, but I'm not sure there's any harm in waiting to decide this aspect, or making a decision but clearly noting that it's subject to change if a different approach becomes common. cmadler (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, streaks are sticky and whatever we come up with would seem to be our own invention. I do sort of like option #1, as it reflects a bit of reality and a bit of officialdom equally, but there are certainly arguments for the others too. I am content to leave it open, or throw it open for discussion, either. (Cute note about Tressel. Probably that hurts him the worst of all.) Well, thanks. I'll noodle some more. JohnInDC (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that the previous sub-section ends w/ "resolution", one would think the issue has been resolved (it has been). This Editorial Guidelines section seems largely irrelevant. The general consensus in the media is that games w/ vacated wins don't count in records between teams at all. Period. No editor, including JohnInDC, has yet to provide a single source to contradict that. Still waiting. We can question the reliability of the sources we have indefinitely. For now, though, they are all we have to go on.  Levdr1lp  (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

A big reason for writing essays like this is so editors will know how to treat the situation when they encounter it, in a consistent and agreed fashion, rather than attacking the matter in ad hoc fashion each time, spawning Talk page discussions in every spot. I think the present disagreement affords a fine occasion for finally hashing out how these conclusions should be presented in college football articles. JohnInDC (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's hash it out, then (again). Find me something credible and reliable online or in print clearly stating that the series record should include games with vacated wins.  Levdr1lp  (talk) 06:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue at this point is not what the sources say but how, as editors, we should take what (little) we have that bears directly on some of these questions and weave it into the existing articles. We need Editorial Guidelines, and my comments above were designed to start the discussion. What do we say when some of a team's wins (but not its opponents' corresponding losses) are vacated? What do we say when the NCAA rules are silent on a subject and the unofficial treatment of an issue is largely a matter of inference from similar, but unrelated pronouncements? It is a confusing area and we need to figure out the least possibly confusing way of presenting it to the reader who hasn't got the time or the patience to muddle through all the permutations. It's bad enough that the NCAA's rules are confusing and inconsistent, and that we're forced to draw our own (quite arguably synthesized) conclusions from bits and pieces of articles - let's not make it worse. I laid out a few suggestions above; we can start with them. JohnInDC (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

For instance, how do we handle the question of series records? The NCAA doesn't track them, so they are "unofficial" from the get-go. Of course anyone can count up two team's wins and losses against one another, so having an "official" record is not that important. But whether we ignore the vacated win in the series record that is posted in an article (as the essay now recommends) or describe two different series records - one without the vacated win and the other still with the un-vacated corresponding loss - we have to say something about what we have done. And most importantly it needs to be succinct and clear, as in, Footnote:

"Ohio State's 2010 victory over Michigan was vacated by the NCAA. NCAA policies prescribe that a vacated win does not remove the corresponding loss from losing team's records, which if strictly applied in this case would result different head-to-head records depending on which team's record is being considered. The NCAA does not, however, maintain series records between teams. Accordingly the series record stated in the infobox herein wholly omits record of the 2010 game. See [this essay] for additional details."

The substance is here. We don't need more links to the same facially irrelevant articles strewn about the encyclopedia to make the point. All articles should link back here - which has the added virtue of maintaining a record of places in which the issue is discussed (via "What Links Here") so that if policies or the essay ever have to change, it is easier to figure out what articles need to be amended. Thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding series records, if the NCAA does not maintain records in its official records book, then I believe we should default to the next most official source to cite for series records. This could be the conferences. However, since many series began prior to the current conference affiliation for a particular team, and rival teams do not always belong to the same conference, a better source for series records is probably the schools themselves. All schools maintain their own official records, including the series records for every opponent, and these are typically available in the media guides or in pre-game press releases (both usually available on-line). If two schools vary in how the present the official records of a series, then perhaps how their conference presents it could be used as the tie-breaking decider (in the case where both schools belong to the same conference, with appropriate footnote listing the differences in how either school presents them) or each school's version should be listed separately (with appropriate footnotes containing explanation for the two records). Foremost, we have to err on the side of not violating WP:OR. However, this requires the patience to wait until the official records are published, usually many months after a game (problematic in its own right), or at least the recognition that the records may be corrected when they are officially published. But cited official sources are likely the best way to proceed, and if the NCAA doesn't maintain the records, than I think you have to fall back to the official records of the individual schools (and perhaps conferences in some cases). CrazyPaco (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that's right. W/here the NCAA doesn't track it, find the next best official source. I do worry a bit that, once you fork to more than one "official" source (e.g., each of the two schools, or the conference) there's a risk of inconsistent recordation - that would seem to be particularly so in the case of the vacated win, which affects one school's record but not the other - but I suppose we can wait until that happens to sort it out. What would be nice in the meantime would be to agree on a way to report head-to-head records and streaks in the (possibly somewhat lengthy) period between the vacation of a game or games and the publication of the new "official" records. (Notably, waiting for the NCAA to act would not seem to be necessary in the case of records that are not in fact tracked by the NCAA.) On this issue I am fairly agnostic whether the game is included or not, so long as it's both simply stated and made clear what is or isn't in (plus what the figures would be if the opposite assumption were made). JohnInDC (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Convention for vacated wins

FYI

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_Basketball#Convention_for_vacated_wins on convention for displaying vacated wins in the body and particularly the infoxbox of articles. Any consensus reached could lead to clarification in this essay as well. Please provide your input.—Bagumba (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I doubt many people watch this page, so I'll copy this to the Project's talk page. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Winning & losing streaks

The NCAA's 2011-2012 policy states, "In compliance with the intention of the Committee on Infractions penalties, all team and coaches’ streaks (such as wins, postseason appearances, team statistical streaks, and so on) are terminated by the vacancy of a contest." This was not clear in the prior version of the policy and I'm editing the article to reflect the change. JohnInDC (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Whose changes should be reflected in Wikipedia articles?

The 2011-12 policy says,

Only when forfeits and vacancies are declared by the NCAA Committee on Infractions will the official record for schools be reversed. Games later forfeited due to post-game administrative actions but not declared by the Committee on Infractions do not alter any NCAA statistics and/or records. It is suggested schools and conferences denote such games by using an asterisk and a footnote, but continue to list the actual contest results.

When a school voluntarily vacates a victory or victory, but the NCAA Committee on Infractions hasn't acted (as was the case for quite some time after Ohio State vacated its wins in connection with the Tressel matter), what should articles reflect? My own thought is to follow the NCAA's guidance and list the (still-official) record including the wins, along with a footnote of some kind indicating that the school has vacated however many victories, with a notation of what the school considers its record to be. Comments? JohnInDC (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 02:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)