Talk:Vacated victory

Purpose of article
I had been under the impression that this page was going to be fashioned into an essay that summed up what's known and what isn't about how "vacated" victories in NCAA contests should be treated, and describing whatever consensus Wikipedia editors reach on how to treat such contests in NCAA-related articles. I'm not sure how useful the exercise is as a standalone article, inasmuch as the universe of known information is captured in one official statement of NCAA policy plus one on line article describing the views of someone at the NCAA, and two similar ones without sources. Much of what is in this article right now largely sums up our discussions in one or another forums, which doesn't seem to have much of a place in an actual, properly sourced article. I'll hold off editing the article either way until it's clear what the mission is. What're folks' views? JohnInDC (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the confusion, but this sandbox is purely meant to be an article about vacated victories. The essay, which you are obviously welcome to expand (I only created it to get the ball rolling), is here. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 02:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay - thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That being the case I think that a lot of material that's here now is not properly sourced or is OR, or includes commentary and or synthesis that isn't appropriate to an article. E.g., the listing of various glitches & anomalous results, or the parenthetical observation that the 2009 articles appeared at a time when vacated victories were in the news a lot.  Maybe instead note that three articles appeared discussing the Alabama situation in 2009, and all concluded that "series records" should write the game off entirely.  I haven't seen much of anything about how streaks should be calculated (does the winning team reset at zero or just subtract one win?) and so that discussion may not have a place here either.  Also, my edit summary comment about distinguishing "vacated victories" and "vacated games" should be disregarded, since the sources (sadly) don't draw that useful distinction - the NCAA sort of wraps up the concepts all into one and then applies them as they see fit.  Discussions about specific rivalries affected may best be relocated to a "see also" section linking to related WP articles, inasmuch as a vacated victory will affect the series records of all opposing teams played by the penalized team, not just the big rivals, and I see particular reason to identify, in article text, only a subset of the many records affected.  Certainly the higher profile rivalries will gain more media attention so maybe there's a way to work the concept in that way.  Anyhow, all that stuff is valuable explanatory material, I think, but much of it may not be suitable in an article that is intended to summarize what's been illuminated or established by reliable sources.  Oddly enough we seem to have done more serious thinking about this issue, and its implications, than anything else I've seen, so we may have to wait a bit for the sources to catch up!  Anyhow those are just some thoughts for shaping the article; I'd make the edits myself but I think Levdr1 and perhaps you, Nolelover, are a bit more enthusiastic about this particular article and I may better serve the undertaking by staying out of your way.  JohnInDC (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, history is good. Thanks for that suggestion back at the project page.  A summary of all NCAA forfeits and vacated games would be a huge undertaking but also a useful list for a lot of readers.  And the retrospective point of view of such a section would be, I think, far better suited to the encyclopedia than an article describing how some kinds of victories "will" or "should" or "may" be treated in the future.  (Which, now that I think of it, may be the reason that I feel that that discussion is better included in an essay than in an article - "prediction" really isn't the province of WP articles, I don't think.)  JohnInDC (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misunderstood and thought this was the place for the essay, which is why I wrote it in the manner I did. cmadler (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First off: you staying out of my way?!? Heck no! :) I'm really not a writer, so I'll need all the help I can get. Anyway, I agree that the sources might actually be here yet (although as cmadler said, by Nov. 26...), but hey, we have no WP:deadline. ;) We'll work on it, and yes, at this point there's lots to do (I wouldn't think of moving it in its current state). Lastly, as to history, note that someone just suggested something to that effect, so we probably won't need a comprehensive list. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 03:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See here for the essay. JohnInDC (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Scope
The NCAA policies apply to all of the sports it oversees. Why confine this article to NCAA football? Indeed it is more likely to confuse, rather than enlighten, the naive reader who may come away from the narrow article thinking that the NCAA would treat different sports differently. It would make more sense to write an article entitled "Forfeits and Vacancies (NCAA athletics)", with an internal section about whatever additional is known specifically about "series records in college football". Though even then I can't imagine that the practices would be any different for basketball, baseball, lacrosse or what have you. (I also think that page titles in sandboxes are altogether provisional anyhow so I'm not going to clutter up folks' watchlists by making the move now, and before discussion.) JohnInDC (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed as I think about it some more, in the absence of some source to indicate that the NCAA would treat football differently than other sports under its comprehensive statement on statistical policy, I think the article can't be limited to football. Food for thought.  JohnInDC (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Back from a long weekend away, and I was just coming here to make the same point. I think the eventual title of this article should be as suggested above. cmadler (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I never really intended for this to only be about NCAA football. Nolelover Talk·<b style="color:Gold">Contribs</b> 19:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)