Talk:2007–08 Clemson Tigers men's basketball team

NPOV Discussion
There seems to be an issue with how the 2008 NCAA Tournament portion of this article is written.

Here is the original text created by myself:
 * Clemson recieved the #5 seed in the Midwest region of the 2008 NCAA Tournament. This marked the first time in 10 seasons the Tigers had made the tournament. In their first game against the #12-seeded Villanova Wildcats, the Tigers fell by a score of 75-69. This was the first time in NCAA Tournament history that 4 lower seeded teams (Villanova, Siena, Kansas State, Davidson) from one region (Midwest) all advanced to the second round.

Here is the edit that Enjoisktboarding2 feels is more appropriate:
 * Clemson received the #5 seed in the Midwest region of the 2008 NCAA Tournament. It was the first time in 10 years that the Tigers made the field of 64. After building as much as an 18 point lead in the first half, the Tigers eventually fell to the #12 seed Wildcats by a final of 75-69. This marked the first time in NCAA Tournament history that 4 lower seeded teams (Villanova, Siena, Kansas State, Davidson) from one region (Midwest) all advanced to the second round.

The main argument surrounding this edit is whether or not the 18 point lead was significant enough to warrant inclusion in the article. If other non-biased editors agree, we will keep it. But Enjoisktboarding2 has made comments about the deletion of "18 point lead" saying it is "just used to make them look better than they actually are.. face it, they've never won anything" These comments present a NPOV issue, and because many fans of the South Carolina Gamecocks have recently decided to vandalized Clemson articles, we just need to get all this out in the open.

So everyone needs to "man up" and discuss this properly. I doubt that'll happen, but we'll see. --Jober14 (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

the original article? hhaha nice try.. manning up doesn't include whining to the mods, and the original paragraph was this from me a few days ago... someone decided to break it up, add it to a totally separate page, and sugar coat it. HERE is the original, i saved it because i knew someone would change it.. cough cough

"In 2008, The Tigers advanced to the ACC Tournament Final for the first time in 46 years (1962), after knocking off the no. 7 Duke Blue Devils by a score of 78-74. However, they were defeated at the hands of a North Carolina team that has now won it's record 17th title. For their efforts, they were granted a #5 seed in the NCAA Tournament, and faced off against the #12 seed Villanova Wildcats. After building as much as an 18 point lead in the first half, Clemson eventually fell to the Wildcats by a final score of 75-69. This marked the first time in NCAA Tournament history that 4 lower seeded teams (Villanova, Siena, Kansas State, Davidson) from one region (Midwest) all advanced to the second round. It had also been 10 years since Clemson last made the field of 64."

i can see no reason why that should have been taken out.. all of it was fact, nowhere in that article do i see bias.. i'm a state fan, so carolina winning their 17th was a fact based on their defeating the tigers.. the 18 point lead is a fact.. and mentioning leads in an article is not bias at all.. a lot of newspapers and magazines do it, so why is becoming an unwritten law to jober14 that you can't include it? i think i'm going to add this back onto the original page.. it is truly a gem. Enjoisktboarding2 (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the inclusion of the 18-point lead in this article, but I'm sure Jober14 will say "Of course he doesn't, he's a Gamecock fan!" However, ultimately I really don't care if it's included or not, because I'm through trying to police some of the Clemson fans on Wiki. As long as they don't try to add negative POV to USC articles, and don't add ridiculously positive POV to Clemson articles, they can stay in their little world and I'll stay in mine. I mean, this article is a perfect example of a mindset that you just aren't going to be able to change. The final regular season poll ranking that places Clemson at #22 is mentioned FIVE TIMES in this article...as though it means anything whatsoever. Anyone without bias (and half a brain) will recognize the fact that Clemson will not be one of the Top 25 teams in the country when the NCAA Tournament is over, but it's mentioned here to make it appear as though the Tigers finished the season in that group. It's the same thing with these people and the 1990 "ACC regular season championship" in basketball. No such thing exists if you ask the ACC, but Clemson fans cling to it, because otherwise they've never won ANYTHING in basketball during the decades they've been in that conference. But as I've said, if they want to live in that fantasy world and perpetuate half-truths on Wikipedia to make themselves feel good, who am I to stand in their way? As long as they don't go overboard, I'm finished trying to bring a dose of reality into their lives. Some of them are so bitter about being forced to face the truth, that in a couple of cases where it was obvious that I was correct in making a certain edit, one user would then write an ENTIRE ARTICLE about a negative side of USC athletics, which is how we got the USC steroid article and the 1998 USC football season (1-10 record) article. But I decided to just roll with it after that second one, and I wrote the 1999 USC football season article, about Lou Holtz's first season when we were 0-11. There is NO WAY one of these Clemson fans would have written an article like that about any of their programs, because in their minds they've never had a bad season in anything. ViperNerd (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

couldn't agree more, i thought it was so funny how a fan put every time they ever made it to the tournament, and even had the balls to write each of the years they made it to the second round, sweet 16, and elite 8.. notice how they've never made it to the final four (i think) which is actually noteworthy.. LOL.. i mean.. no one cares, and no one wants to read that nonsense, because it doesn't matter. Like you said, the only thing Clemson Basketball has ever won is one conf tournament in freakin' 1939, and a regular season title in 1990. It was just a pathetic attempt to make them look better, but it actually made whoever wrote it look like a desperate weirdo. Enjoisktboarding123 (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So what you're saying is that no team should ever mention any accomplishment unless it's a national championship? So schools like Butler and Davidson should not be noting their sweet 16 appearances? You also should not be making assumptions on what the general public wants to read in a certain article. See the whole point of this discussion was to decide what is appropriate and what isn't for an article about a school's basketball team. Instead you resort to belittling Clemson's basketball program, the university and it's fans. There are online message boards one can visit to talk trash, but Wikipedia is about FACTS. If a fact like an 18-point lead in one game is significant enough to mention, then I believe it is significant to mention a program's accomplishments on the national scene, no matter how small. This page is about Clemson Basketball, not basketball in general. In a general article about college basketball, it would NOT be notable to mention every tournament appearance by every team. But in the case of a specific program it is. Plus if like you say, no one cares, then why are we having this discussion? Why do YOU care? Are your intentions to make Wikipedia a better and more concise source of information? Or are your intentions to "put Clemson fans in their place"? --Jober14 (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

look man, i just think it's absurd to add in every year a teams made the tournament. i dare you, visit any page including the ones you mentioned.. and i guarantee you won't find it written out like that. yes other accomplishments are notable, but i would go so far as to limit it to final four appearances.. because unless you win it all .. no, it's not that important.. success is based off of titles, whether that be conference or national.. and clemson only has one conference title.. which is why it's mentioned. and to address your comment, it is NOT appropriate to mention said appearances.. and i'm not belittling clemson basketball. they just haven't won much of anything in the past 69 years.. Enjoisktboarding2 (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

well i was wrong about butler.. i guess people need something to get excited about if their team has never been to the final four or championship.. LOL Enjoisktboarding2 (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Clemson-University-claw-logo.png
The image Image:Clemson-University-claw-logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --00:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://acc.playonsports.tv/clemson/index.html
 * In 2007–08 Clemson Tigers men's basketball team on 2011-05-27 02:12:20, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
 * In 2007–08 Clemson Tigers men's basketball team on 2011-05-27 15:35:23, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
 * In 2007–08 Clemson Tigers men's basketball team on 2011-06-15 23:05:31, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)