Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College basketball

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

College basketball This page is within the scope of WikiProject College basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college basketball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College basketballWikipedia:WikiProject College basketballTemplate:WikiProject College basketballcollege basketball

WikiProject College basketball
Overview Project page talk Participants talk Project category talk Departments Assessment (log) talk Article alerts talk Cleanup listing Unassessed articles (1409) Unknown importance (9706) Recognized content Featured articles (21) Featured lists (17) Good articles (270) Total WPCBB articles (59363)
Resources and Guides Master team table talk Popular pages talk Research sources talk Templates talk Yearbook references talk Yearly team pages format talk
Tools Active editors talk CBB Welcome Template talk Project banner talk Project Userbox talk
Important Articles 2024–25 NCAA men's DI season talk 2024–25 men's rankings talk 2025 men's DI tournament talk 2024–25 NCAA women's DI season talk 2024–25 women's rankings talk 2025 women's DI tournament talk
view • talk • • changes

It appears about 14 years ago there was an attempt to create a standardization for the infoboxes regarding tournament achievements, and while that seemed to mostly resolve things, there is still one issue prevalent throughout many college basketball pages. There is an inconsistency regarding the round of 32. Most pages include round of 32 appearances, but some do not, and I have been trying to add round of 32 appearances to these remaining pages, but have received pushback from editors who take care of those specific pages. Their pushback offers a logical argument though, as in some cases, including the round of 32 creates a visually "awkward" situation, as some schools have more Sweet 16 appearances than round of 32 due to the true round of 32 having only existed since 1979. With that, I would argue, is counting round of 32 appearances really that necessary? Aside from smaller "Cinderella" schools, making the second round isn't viewed as much of an accomplishment, and instead, the goal for many is to at least make the second weekend of the tournament (Sweet 16). Perhaps the one exemption could be to keep the round of 32 appearances for teams that have only made it that far in their history. Would like to try and find a consensus for standardization among all pages. Red0ctober22 (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Red0ctober22, to clarify, we are talking about Template:Infobox college basketball team, as seen at Duke Blue Devils men's basketball. The fields listing every single year of every round of advancement through the NCAA tourney plus every single year of conference tourney and regular season championships really seems like overkill for an infobox. I can see listing out the individual years for national titles, but everything else should probably just be a simple count. The body of these basketball program articles can included details listed of yearly championships and tourney advancement. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the conference regular season and tournament championship years are helpful, especially with programs less successful than Duke. Aside from national championship years, I would also support the inclusion of natty runner-up years and probably even Final Four. I can see an argument being made for schools that have only went as far as, say a couple Sweet Sixteen appearances, to include those as an exception. However, dozens and dozens of NCAA tournament berths look terrible as is. JTtheOG (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's absolutely visually unappealing to look at the "barrage" of years on infoboxes for teams like Duke and Kentucky. I propose this: list the years for every championship, those being conference tournament and regular season championships, national championships, and even Final Four appearances (those are considered regional championships). Then the rest can be just listed in a number as you said, like "NCAA Tournament appearances: 40" or something like that. I understand for smaller schools it may look like nothing, but most smaller schools that have a tournament appearances at least have a conference regular season or conference tournament championship. Obviously this would be a big undertaking and would need the infobox itself to be changed, but it would definitely clear things up.

This would model the NBA infoboxes really (see Philadelphia 76ers), as they only list the years for NBA titles, conference titles, and division titles, it's not noted if you just make the playoffs one year without winning anything. Red0ctober22 (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A minor change to this, instead of having to tweak the infobox coding, I would say that simply removing national runner-up (because that already counts in Final Four), Elite 8, Sweet 16, and Round of 32 appearances could suffice. Then even the best programs like Duke or Kentucky would only really have only one entry with a large number of years (NCAA Tournament appearances). Red0ctober22 (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the compromise for WP editors who are averse to prose is to have the tourney details in a table like at Texas Tech Red Raiders basketball § Postseason (and even that could maybe be reduced to final finish result). A slew of years that aren't even linked is just clutter saying "they made it a bunch of times" for boosterism and a type of participation award. Limiting the infobox to regular season conf and conf tourney titles along with national titles and Final Fours seems discriminate. —Bagumba (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sounds like a good proposal, and most pages already have that table that shows specific tournament details which helps. I will give this some time to see if anyone objects before starting to clean up any infoboxes. Red0ctober22 (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is not any opposition, I will move forward with cleaning up the infoboxes. I will wait though until the NCAA tournament is over because traffic on individual team pages will likely drop off after that.

Moving forward, the standard it seems we have agreed upon is to only include: NCAA Tournament championships (and the two pre-tournament Premo-Poretta and Helms championships, if-applicable), national runner-up, Final Four appearances, conference tournament championships, conference regular season championships, and Conference division championships. Anything else can be removed.

This will also allow for a standardization for these years to be linked, as the NCAA tournament championships and runner-ups can be linked to that year's championship game, the Final Four appearances can be linked to that year's tournament, and the conference tournament championship's can be linked to that year's conference tournament. Red0ctober22 (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There should be movement to remove the entire parameter from the template page as well. So that in the future, they won't be recreated.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd suggest updating the {{Infobox college basketball team}} template itself. Afterwards, cleaning up the individual pages is not urgent as a purely cosmetic change. —Bagumba (talk) 04:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a great idea, although I fear that might mess up the coding for the template on every single page though? Red0ctober22 (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, I would still have to remove, for example "| NCAAsweetsixteen = 2009, 2016, 2018, 2021, 2022" from each individual page, correct? Red0ctober22 (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't related to this current branch of the Infobox standardization discussion, but I think the "| NCAAeliteeight" line of the template should be kept because that is the smallest size the tournament has ever been and as a result, you can't have instances of teams having more final four appearances than elite eights (like you can with elite eights vs sweet sixteens and sweet sixteens vs round of 32 appearances) in their respective infoboxes. Additionally, you'd have the smallest NCAA tournament size being eight teams as reasoning behind that being the infobox cutoff (while removing sweet 16s, round of 32s, etc.) instead of just an arbitrary discussion deciding on Final Fours or better. I agree on everything else that has been discussed except the removal of "| NCAAeliteeight" from the template. TNNSUH (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a fan of college basketball who uses wikipedia for information when watching random games I really loved having the progression of each round listed. I don't necessarily need it where it was if you are trying to make the front page less cluttered, but maybe having it listed under the postseason section would be good? I liked the shrinking list of years because it made it easy to see performance over the time and fun quirks like being really good or bad in specific rounds. Andreww2003 (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Count me in as opposition. I referenced the data in those infoboxes all the time when researching programs. Rounds advanced to in the tournament is a major milestone when looking at programs, and having them in a convenient, standardized, and prominent place was a big benefit when referencing the pages. The "barrage" for prominent teams like Kentucky and Duke actually seems like more of a feature than a bug, as it emphasizes just exactly why those programs are considered blue bloods. WallyOPD (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very poor decision in my humble opinion 2600:6C40:4AF0:770:B0E1:8558:7103:3EAE (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Tournament advancement in College Basketball is a significant milestone, especially for mid-majors who make it to a Sweet 16 or Elite 8. They should be included in the info box. 131.204.107.52 (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement, it's just too many dates and easily provided throughout every article. I always imagine the infobox section as a "banner" space (since it kinda looks like one) - a place to put important info you'd hang a banner for. Championships, final fours, etc Huskerpower (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a sports fan, this is a bad idea. We use these pages for quick references for tournament appearances as well as sweet 16 appearances, etc. Thid is useful information and not superfluous overkill or “participation” as stated. 38.18.89.136 (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the tournament appearances and R32 appearances back. That was really nice to reference, to see how many appearances of a school were under the current coach. I don't think a supposedly awkward appearance (which I don't really think is that awkward) should trump having the information easily available 45.18.196.129 (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the infobox back to the previous, long-standing appearance. To address some comments:

• This is not a "barrage" of information, it's a few lines of years.
• For truly elite teams, like Duke or UNC, yes they have a lot of appearances. For the vast majority of teams, they may only have 32 or Sweet Sixteen appearances, and the previous edit just listed them as "made the tournament."
• This previous edit completely overrode the actual fans/editors of individual schools in how their team pages have looked for years.
• The previous edit made it much, much harder to analyze programs' success at a glance.
• No, this does not match the infoboxes for other NCAA sports. Because there are no other NCAA sports that have a similar post-season history that serves as a measure of success and that has such distinct levels. It's a poor argument to compare the NCAAT to any other college postseason.

Tlboyd (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with adding it back, but we still haven't solve the original problem I had which was with the Round of 32, since certain pages included the Round of 32 and some didn't. I support simply removing the Round of 32 altogether as it is not that significant to win only one tournament game. Red0ctober22 (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going off of this, maybe perhaps a compromise can be that for teams that have never been to the Sweet 16, the Round of 32 can be included, but otherwise do not include the Round of 32 for any other teams. Red0ctober22 (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, since the Sweet 16 and Elite 8 are back, we need to determine what the standard should be for years that the tournament was less than 32 teams. Does simply making the tournament and losing the first game in a year when the tournament was only 8 teams count as an Elite 8 appearance, and likewise with the Sweet 16 in 16-team years? Red0ctober22 (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason you see it with some schools and not with others is simply because much like stated previously, sometimes that's the only successful tournament runs that a school has to their name. I'm in support of removing Round of 32 appearances for big schools like Kentucky or Duke, but most small mid-major programs I think would benefit from seeing years where they've made it to the second round. Just winning a tournament game might not be a huge deal at a school like Kansas, or even Mississippi State, but for schools like UMBC I think it's significant to mention. RichieNebraska (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the schools big or small have Round of 32 appearances, and I when I went to fix the last remaining few who didn't have them, I received pushback from editors who mainly only take care of that page. These schools were Houston and Michigan I believe, both teams with successful histories, but I don't really see why those editors think those schools are special compared to the rest. Red0ctober22 (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"when I went to fix the last remaining few who didn't have them, I received pushback from editors who mainly only take care of that page."

Perhaps the biggest takeaway here is to listen to the editors who are most invested in those pages, and don't assume that everyone is best suited by a major, over-arching decision that impacts every page and overrides that granularity. You're trying to solve a problem you created - that the round of 32 can differ from the Sweet Sixteen - by editing pages that already had active editors who were familiar with that specific school. And then you overreacted by just killing off all the varying levels of achievement.

TL;DR: let editors manage their pages, R32 isn't a big deal Tlboyd (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you though, even though it is winning only one game, it's still significant for a team like Fairleigh Dickinson or UMBC. As I said above, I think a good standard would be to only include the Round of 32 for teams that have never made it any further than that before. Red0ctober22 (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your round of 32 standard when it comes to including/not including the results in the infobox. Seems like a relatively clear/simple cutoff considering the importance of winning a single tournament game in a given year varies depending on the school. TNNSUH (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be difficult to modify the infobox template to display either Sweet 16 appearances or round of 32 appearances but not both, prioritizing the Sweet 16, if an editor enters data for both parameters. Actually, once the template is modified in such a manner, no one will need to remove the entries from every page. The entries simply won't show up. I'm pretty sure I could make the change to the template.

I think being selected to an eight-team tournament is an Elite Eight appearance. With so few teams selected, getting invited merits the same status as winning your way there. However, that makes it theoretically possible to have an Elite Eight team that has never on a tournament game. Going further down the line, it's also possible to have a round of 32 appearance without ever winning a game (between 1975 and 1984). Nevertheless, if a team earned a bid to a 32-team tournament or received a bye to the round of 32 in a 40-, 48-, 52- or 53-team tournament, what they did to get there gives them the same status as a team that won a round of 64 game.

If a team's only NCAA tournament win was in a First Four game, there is no easy way to discern that from the infobox. One possible solution would be to add a parameter that allows for the entry of a team's all-time NCAA tournament record, but only if the round of 32 parameter is empty. Thus, on Alabama State Hornets basketball, we would see a title NCAA tournament record with 1–5 showing up. This would also not be a difficult change to implement, particularly if there's no mechanism to stop editors from entering winless records. If we want to do that, the coding becomes more complicated.

The CBB project's articles are for the majority of readers, most of whom are not editors. The feedback indicates to me that the infoboxes are relied upon heavily, more so than I had thought. So, I'm in favor of infobox design being responsive to that. Taxman1913 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to be a little bold and make changes in the template's sandbox. There are four test cases you can see. For Texas, Fairleigh Dickinson and Alabama State, I added their all-time NCAA Division I tournament records after creating a new parameter for that. Otherwise, the data entered in the template are identical to the live pages. You can see that the R32 years currently show up for Texas in the live version. The change in the sandbox version of the template would eliminate this. For Fairleigh Dickinson, R32 years should show up, because they've never been to a Sweet 16, and the sandbox changes allow that to continue. For Alabama State, which has no Sweet 16 or R32 appearances, their all-time tournament record shows up after the sandbox changes. Citadel is included as a test case to make sure the sandbox changes don't wreck a team that has never been to a tournament. I added Duke as a fifth test case, because no R32 information is entered in that infobox. As expected, evan after adding the NCAA tourney record, the infoboxes are identical.

I included "Division I" in the header title associated with the tournament record parameter, because I don't think it's important enough to have records of teams in the D2 or D3 tournaments showing up in infoboxes. This becomes more evident, when we consider that they will only show up for teams that have no entries in the R32 paramenter. Since I don't believe those tournaments have ever been larger than 64 teams, anyone entering D2 or D3 tournament records will likely be doing so for winless teams.

What's missing here is the ability to enter D2 or D3 Sweet 16 or R32 appearances concurrent with showing a win in the Division I tournament. For example, in the test case, if Alabama State had beaten Chattanooga in the 1975 D2 tournament, there would be no way to enter in the Sweet 16 parameter "1975 (Division II)" and still show their 1–5 record in the Division I tournament. I don't know how many, if any, schools this affects. I imagine it would be very few.

Please provide feedback about whether you think this gets us where we need to go and addresses the concerns expressed. Taxman1913 (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like the general idea in the test cases, however, I don’t think many people, even the schools themselves, see winning a First Four game as very significant, as in almost every case they just go on to get blown out by a 1 seed. What matters most to those schools is simply the fact that they made an appearance in the NCAA tournament. So in that case, I’m not sure a record would be totally necessary if the only wins it would show are First Four wins.

Otherwise, a system where it can automatically eliminate the Round of 32 for teams that have made it further that you have made is great to have so that we don’t have to manually remove it for every team. Using modern standards in today’s 68-team tournament, the first goal of a tournament run for most high-major programs is to make it to that second weekend of the tournament anyway, so starting off at the Sweet 16 is a logical standard in my opinion. Red0ctober22 (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree about schools not viewing a First Four win as a big deal. That's an official NCAA Tournament win, like it or not, and the smaller schools who rarely get to play in the Big Dance absolutely take pride in First Four wins. SportsGuy789 (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The types of schools that play in 16-seed First Four games absolutely think its a big deal to get a tournament win. These teams typlically come from leagues like the NEC, MEAC, SWAC, Southland, AmEast (if Vermont doesn't get in) or Patriot (if Colgate doesn't get in). For many of them, that single notch in their belt is a significant point of pride. You would think these leagues would prefer that they get a direct 16 seed and just play a no. 1. However, there are credits available for appearing in that winnable First Four game, and, in private conversations, I've been told the extra money you get for playing in the First Four makes a difference to cash starved league like these... if they win the First Four game. Taxman1913 (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What if we have a parameter for "best NCAA tournament finish", and then a collapsed-by-default parameter for "other NCAA tournament finishes" below that? So for example, at Duke Blue Devils men's basketball, the five championships would appear by default in the first parameter, and everything else would be in the second parameter available by clicking "show". I think this would help reduce the initial visual clutter while still allowing readers the option of seeing all results with a single click. It's also an objective, fair, and consistently-enforceable standard. Left guide (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea, I just fear that making that much of a change to the coding of the infobox would "break" the infobox on every individual page until someone goes in and fixes each one manually. Red0ctober22 (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I think changes should be tested in sandboxes first. Left guide (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support that idea. I agree with the general sentiment above that restricting it to Elite Eight or better is arbitrary and it discriminates against schools that hang their hat on making the tournament, given their size and status. But collapsing everything except for "best finish" seems ideal, it isn't arbitrary and it saves real estate in the infobox area of the articles. I'm not sure how it'd be implemented other than a group of volunteers rolling up their sleeves to divvy out the work on each team article, but it could be done. SportsGuy789 (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to be in the group of volunteers rolling up their sleeves to divvy out the work on each team article. Unfortunately, I lack the template literacy to easily make the desired changes on the template page in the first place, but I'll gladly pitch in article-side. Left guide (talk) 06:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to this, but plase see my explanation above and the related test cases that would immediately allow us to eliminate the display of R32 years for teams that have been to a Sweet 16 and show the records of teams that have an NCAA tournament win but no R32 appearace, i.e. First Four winners.

Perhaps the sandbox version of the infobox can serve as a bridge. Then, we could create the bestfinish parameter and use it as a toggle. If it is empty on a page, the infobox would render as it does with the sandbox version. If the bestfinish parameter is not empty, the new look of the infobox will be displayed with the collapsed details. Taxman1913 (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the simplest way to accommodate this proposal would be to allow the existing parameters to be nested inside of the proposed new parameters, if possible. Is there anyone more template-literate than me who can help with this in the sandbox and testcase pages? Left guide (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll give it a try. What you described was my idea of how it would work anyway. The idea is to avoid breaking infoboxes that do not currently have the bestfinish parameter entered. If it works, simply enteriing the bestfinish parameter on each page will make the infobox flip to the new look. I suggest the bestfinish parameter should be restricted to the best finish in the D-I tournament for teams that have played in tournaments across divisions. Otherwise, a team that won the D-II tournament and reached the Sweet 16 of the D-I tournament might have best finish as "National champion" with their best D-I result of Sweet 16 collapsed upon loading the page. It will be important to document how the new parameter is to be used. For a team that has always been a D-II team (very few of which have articles), using best finish for their best D-II result will be fine. Taxman1913 (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Taxman1913, SportsGuy789, and Red0ctober22: Upon further reflection, a "best finish" parameter seems like overkill that creates unnecessary work. Using the Duke example, the championships can just appear as they are, with the "other NCAA tournament finishes" parameter and header collapsing the other results. Left guide (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So for a team without a championship, would there just be the dropdown box called "NCAA tournament finishes" without anything outside of that box? Red0ctober22 (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If so, maybe we can agree on allowing for national championships, national runner-ups, and regional championships (Final Fours), along with conference tournament, regular season, and division titles, to be included standalone in the infobox, then everything else (Elite 8, Sweet 16, NCAA tournament appearances) can go in the collapsible box. This could be a "super compromise" of sorts, as we retain the original agreement to clean up the overkill by hiding anything that isn't an actual championship, but the tournament progression is still easily accessible for those who want to see it. Red0ctober22 (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If we are only showing actual championships on initial load (which I don't support), national runners-up should be excluded. Also, accommodating Division II isn't a big priority, but their eight regional champions all go to the Elite Eight. Dropping Elite Eight from the initial load with no workaround leaves this collapsed. I don't know how many articles this would affect. Probably only a handful. It is less important for a team currently classified as Division I. Nevertheless, this could be solved with the bestfinish parameter added to act as a toggle.

  I think its more useful to readers to have two headers display on initial load: best finish (with the label that already exists, not a new label called best finish) and other tournament results. This will be true for any team that has won a game in the tournament. Teams that have appeared but never won would just have the appearances header show with nothing collapsible. Taxman1913 (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think my last comment (and possibly the proposal in general) may have been partially misunderstood. My idea is that whatever the team's best finish is can be visible on initial load, whether that be championship, runner-up, Final Four, Elite Eight, or anything else. What I explained about Duke is merely an example for how it works in that particular context. Based on my understanding, I just doubt whether it's necessary to make a separate "best finish" parameter. However, if those folks more template-literate than me find a "best finish" parameter to be helpful in carrying out the proposal for reasons I don't understand, I wouldn't be opposed. Left guide (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a glaring omission from the conversation above. Between 1972 and 1982 the AIAW women's basketball tournament was the national postseason tournament for women and the predecessor to the NCAA tournament. How will this be handled if the infobox tourney appearances coding gets changed? SportsGuy789 (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the case, could there simply be a separate dropdown box for "Best AIAW finish"? Red0ctober22 (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Factoring in the AIAW really increases the messiness of the coding but doesn't make it impossible. I don't think we should end up wth something that ends up collapsing AIAW national champions on initial page load. Left guide mentions above that a best finish parameter is overkill and creates unnecessary work. I'm not sure what is meant by that. He cites Duke as an example. So, does that mean that teams that have won a national championship end up with two headers in the infobox on initial page load: National championships and other NCAA tournament results, while teams without a national championship end up with only one header: (other) NCAA tournament results? Either "other" displays for every team, or the template is coded to drop the word other when the natchamp parameter is empty. That would be fairly simple to accomplish.

For a team whose best finish is a Final Four appearance, I would prefer that two headers load: Final Four appearances and other NCAA tournament results.

I do not anticipate the bestfinish parameter resulting in a header in the infobox that displays what the user inputs. Instead, it is a logical parameter that sends the template on one of two paths: the display in presently in the sandbox or the soon to be built display with many details collapsed. It also allows the template to identify that the team has actually played in the D-I (or AIAW) tournament. I envision this parameter as a switch that guides how the template displays the infbox. Once we know it works, it can be expanded to include team results in non-D-I tournaments that might be displayed in the infobox.

If we do not use a best finish parameter and only select the best header based ona hierarchy, a team with a D-II national championship and a D-I Sweet 16 as their best finishes will display the natchamp and other headers on initial load. I think the D-I Sweet 16 is probably the most significant item to readers, and that should be what displays on initial load. There is no way for the template to know which data are D-I and which are non-D-I without a separate parameter. Taxman1913 (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before I start modifying the infobox template to create the collapsible feature, is there consensus to update the live template to the versionn currently in the sandbox? Please look over the test cases and voice your opinion here. This update will reflect consensus expressed above that we really don't need to see R32 appearances for teams that have been to a Sweet 16. On the downside, if a team's has entires in the Sweet 16 parameter for D-II or D-II performances, and its best finish in the D-I tournament was R32, the R32 appearances will no longer show up. I don't know how many teams this affects.

I plan to start working on the collapsibility feature 24 hours from now. So, if there's consensus to make the update, I'll do that before messing with the template any further. I'll also update the documentation. Taxman1913 (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support this plan. I think in terms of the whole D2/D1 situation, as you said, I don't think this affects that many teams, and for most teams that switched from D2 to D1, its likely because they had some sort of decent tournament success, so they most likely have at least a Final Four in D2 or something. In that case, I would assume programs probably take more pride in a D2 championship than a D1 R32 appearance. Red0ctober22 (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing a lot of research on Le Moyne's history for the past year and a half. They reclassified from D-II in 2023. From what I've seen about their opponents during their D-II era, I would say that high achievement at the D-II level in MBB is not a predictor of whether a team ultimately reclassifies. Teams that were either in the same conference as Le Moyne or regular opponents of theirs and then reclassified had both glorious and spotty D-II results. A year and a half ago, I knew almost nothing about D-II basketball. I've learned a lot since then. The quality of play was much higher in the past, which makes sense, because there were far fewer D-I programs and notmany scholarships to go around.

Le Moyne drew home crowds for highly anticipated games in excess of 2,000, with Syracuse playing only four miles away. Some of their regular opponents would draw crowds of 3,000 or more. In the 1950s and 1960s, Le Moyne was able to schedule home games against ranked D-I opponents, and the program has 65 wins over D-I programs during its D-II era with three of those wins coming over ranked D-I teams. Their deepest run in the D-II tournament is a single Elite Eight appearance. So, their R32 appearances will disappear with the changes to the template.

From what I've seen the two biggest factors in pulling the trigger on reclassifying are availabiity of money and desire for prestige. Success in MBB can generate donations and move the needle. The decision becomes far more complex for schools sponsoring football, since they're unlikely to get an FBS conference invitation, and FCS football can be a significant drain on resources. Taxman1913 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a look at a lot of pages, I think this system looks great and works well to make it easier for editors. Just one last thing though, I notice some women's pages, most notably Tennessee, uses the NCAA second round parameter instead of the Round of 32 parameter, I suppose because the women's tournament took a little while to get to 64 teams despite being created in 1982. Could you possibly make another entry that removes the second round parameter if Sweet Sixteen appearances are present like you did with the Round of 32 parameter? Red0ctober22 (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a great idea to round things out. I'll incorporate that into the changes I'm making so it works even if no bestfinish paramter is present, i.e. the infobox is not using the collapsible feature. Taxman1913 (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody is interested in the early days of Southern basketball, your help is appreciated for the List of SIAA basketball champions and related articles. Takes a bit more research than football or baseball. The Birmingham AC and the Columbus YMCA were considered the best teams. So there is "collegiate Southern champion" and just "Southern champion" simpliciter which in the early days was one of those two. I am just doing the colleges but those two are also especially important, if anyone wants to do the work. Cake (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Franz Wagner (basketball)#Requested move 23 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point, Florida's Olivier Rioux. He redshirted this year as a true freshman and didn't appear in a game. But he has a championship navbox on his page now. SportsGuy789 (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it was the Stanley Cup, he wouldn't have his name etched onto the trophy. Of course, that's not the standard. Just because he was on scholarship there, I don't think that's enough for him to have a claim at being a member of a national championship team. Had he played the first three games of the season, gotten injured and taken a medical redshirt, I would probably feel differently. Without appearing in a game, he was basically a practice player who travelled with the team. Taxman1913 (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, we have never done this and there are many examples over time where this applies. For example, Seth Curry was a redshirt on the 2010 Duke team. Readers are using these navboxes years later to remember who was on the team that won. Rioux didn’t play a minute this season for the Gators. Rikster2 (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He was still on the team. Reliable sources show him cutting down the nets after winning the national championship with his team. Clearly a member of the national championship team, deserving any such navbox honors. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's definitive. The team manager may have been given a turn with the scissors as well. Simply cutting down the nets is not, by itself, a basis for someone to be considered a national champion. I'm sure Rioux worked very hard in practice this season, but it is difficult to call him a national championship player when he did not play. Taxman1913 (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources show him cutting down the nets after winning the national championship with his team. Using a photo of someone cutting down nets to call him/her a "national champion" on Wikipedia is a form of WP:OR. To call a player a national champion, there must be reliable sources directly calling him/her a national champion. Per WP:RSPSI, present-day SI isn't clearly a reliable source anyway. Left guide (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today then? Olivier Rioux is 7-foot-9, but because he was a freshman redshirt, he didn't play for the Florida Gators this season. Still, he's a national champion like the rest of his team after the March Madness win over Houston on Monday. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that counts per WP:USATODAY and the direct verification shown. Left guide (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does not seem the USA Today article's context indicates the journalist intented to make a definitive, authoritative statement about Rioux's status as a national champion. It is doubtful that the article would have been written had Rioux not cut the net without the aid of a ladder. That seems to be what the article is truly about. While USA Today is a reliable source, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Since Rioux is the first in my memory to have cut the net without a ladder, it's understandable that we haven't seen articles in the past about redshirted players in which they are proclaimed national champions. Despite the USA Today article, I'm quite sure SRCBB is not going to put "2025 national champion" on Rioux's profile page. If Rioux is to be added back to the navbox, (redshirted) should appear next to his name. The inconsistency thereby created would necessitate reviewing other naxboxes for players like Seth Curry who might have been missed... which will create a knock-on problem, since there is no WP:RS that will confirm Seth Curry was a national champion in 2010. The inability to achieve consistency is a very good reason to leave Rioux out of the navbox. That, coupled with the context of the cited source, makes this a clear call in my view. Taxman1913 (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting down nets is an arbitrary thing, teams can have anyone help cut down the nets. I would equate it to getting an NBA championship ring. Teams can give anyone a ring but if a player is traded away mid season and is not with the team during the playoffs, the NBA doesn’t count them as a champ even if the team decides to give them a ring. Rioux was not an active member of the team this year. If he had played even one regular season game That would be different. But he didn’t and, again, we have been very consistent with this through the years. And, no, some random USA Today reporter isn’t the determinant factor here. Rikster2 (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not seeing ANY reason to not list him as a national champion. If other similar players haven't been given the same honor on Wikipedia, we should correct that omission.

The Florida Gators have him on the roster of their national championship team, marked as a "Freshman" and in the same table as all of the starters and reserve players on the team. He suited up for the national championship game. As far as I am aware there is no official/disqualifying status for "redshirt" freshman, so he assumedly could have and would have gone into the national championship game at a moment's notice had his coach called for that substitution due to injury or a set play that required Rioux's height.

A reliable source, national newspaper USA Today, directly says that he is a national champion along with the rest of his team despite not playing any minutes.

How far are we going to go with this? He's a freshman on the national championship team. He cut down the national championship nets along with his team. He'll presumably get a national championship ring. He'll shake the president's hand at the white house. He'll be honored at the on-campus national championship parade and hoist the national championship trophy at the field house. He'll be in the national championship roster photo along with the starters and other players on the team.

Denying him "national champion" status because you think he doesn't deserve it is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH.

PK-WIKI (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

he did not play a game for the team. Not a minute. That’s not original research. His college debut has not occurred, that is also in that SI piece you linked. Wikipedia is about putting objective standards for ambiguous situations. It would be misleading to future readers to include him. The natural response (if he is remembered then) would be “I didn’t remember he played for that team.” That’s because he didn’t. Rikster2 (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The connection that "not playing a game for the team" equals "not a national champion" is original research. Left guide (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

he was not eligible to play a minute for the team. And as Bagumba said, we have similar situations with past players not being called national champs by independent sources, so we should follow that in this case. Rikster2 (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How many other members of the team didn't play a single minute? We don't know because that stat isn't tracked as something that matters. They're members of the team or they aren't. This isn't an ambiguous situation.

So if a second-string Quarterback is part of the 53-man roster, but ends up not playing any snaps on the way to the Super Bowl, he's not a Super Bowl champion? But the third-string QB is because he took 2 snaps in garbage time? Pure WP:OR. PK-WIKI (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we can track who didn’t play a single minute on the season (which is what we are talking about, not just the tourney) - it would be in the season stats (or rather missing from them ). But Rioux was not even eligible all season for coach Golden, because he was a redshirt - that’s the issue. By the way, “For The Win” (where your link comes from) is owned by USA Today, but it is not the newspaper’s sports section. It is a social media property. I would argue it is not covered under USA Today as a reliable source. Rikster2 (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the reliability appears to have been challenged, I've raised that matter at WP:RSN#For The Win (USA Today) to seek wider community input. Left guide (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A redshirt freshman is a player who is an active, eligible, member of the team who can come in to play at any time.

After the season, if they don't play in any games (or less than X minutes) they can lobby the NCAA for a redshirt waiver that gives them another year of eligibility. Redshirt seasons can be "burned" by the freshman playing in a game.

This is confirmed by the New York Times in last year's tournament:

For seven minutes of playing time, he burned his medical redshirt

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5347945/2024/03/20/longwood-ncaa-tournament-trey-hicks/

But when he checked into the Big South Championship game against UNC Asheville four minutes into the second half, on what could be the Lancers’ next-to-last game of the season (as a 16-seed, they’ll play No. 1 seed Houston in the first round of the NCAA Tournament on Friday), Hicks burned his shot at that redshirt season. An improbable confluence of circumstances put Longwood in a situation to need Hicks; but it was Hicks who answered the call. “I told Coach, if you need me, you got me,’’ Hicks says. “For a program that has done so much for me, that’s the least I could do.”

Olivier Rioux was an active member of the national championship team. He could have played at any time in the national championship game, just as Trey Hicks did last year.

PK-WIKI (talk) PK-WIKI (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except, he wasn't. He could not play a single minute because he was declared a redshirt prior to the season. He was not active, nor eligible. Ball boys don't get official championships. He could not "have played at any time in the national championship game." Game, set, match. SportsGuy789 (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Post a reliable source citation you can be "declared a redshirt prior to the season" in college basketball, and that this would make him ineligible to play in subsequent games.

You say that Rioux was "not active, nor eligible" on the season, yet the Associated Press quotes his coach after the fourth game of the season saying:

“Honestly, it’s put him in a tough situation. He’s sitting over there at the end of games and everybody’s yelling at him and trying to get him out there. They just hadn’t understood that that was our potential plan for him. “So that’s where we’re at at this moment. I’m not saying that’s 100% going to be the plan. We’ll continue to talk to him and see if he changes what he wants to do. But as of right now, that’s the plan that we’re going to have with him as we move forward.”

Rioux was an active, eligible freshman player on the Florida gators national championship team that could have played at any time in any game, including in the national championship game. PK-WIKI (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not how it works, he still has four years of eligibility and Golden announced early on he was redshirting. The season is over, his status as a redshirt who did not play a game can not be disputed. Rikster2 (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of that has anything to do with the question at hand. He was an eligible, active member of the team during the entire season and including the national championship game. Your assertion that he must play at a minimum 1 second of game time at any point during the season to be considered a national champion is COMPLETE original research. PK-WIKI (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It abides by the same exact standard set forth in this WikiProject in the mid-2000's that players need to appear in a regular season or postseason game in order to be added to "Category:School Team men's basketball players", because if they've literally never played for the school then they aren't players with any statistical measurement for the school, hence no category. Applying this logic to redshirt players not being national champions is not WP:OR, it's actually quite consistent. SportsGuy789 (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PK-WIKI: I'm really not seeing ANY reason to not list him as a national champion. I provided two reasons. I'll repeat them here for your convenience: (1) WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and (2) The project would be unable to achieve consistency by including Rioux in the navbox, because we would be unable to find a reliable source saying that each player who was on a team that won a championship during a season such player was redshirting is recognized as a national champion. Your responses have addressed neither of these points in a realistic way. Instead, you said, If other similar players haven't been given the same honor on Wikipedia, we should correct that omission. How would we go about doing that without any reliable sources to support such "honor on Wikipedia"? By the way, what is an "honor on Wikipedia"? I know editors can get barnstars and other recognitions. However, the subject of an encyclopedia article is not being honored. I don't see Florida as being "honored" by having a gold bar across the top of the infobox on their team season page. It is there as a visual reference for users. If Rioux's name is in the navbox, this is not an honor; it is information for users, and such information would be incorrect and misleading, since he didn't play.

As you have correctly pointed out, redshirt status does not become final until the season ends. So, of course, Rioux is on the 2024–25 roster and was eligible to play in the championship game. Now, the season has ended. His redshirt status can be confirmed. He didn't play a single minute during the season, and he did not consume a year of playing eligibility. Next season, he'll be on the roster again, if he doesn't transfer. He will be listed again as a freshman (or redshirt freshman by detail-oriented roster composers). So, which season will be his freshman season for eligibility purposes?

How far are we going to go with this? That doesn't sound like a good way to engage in discourse. Frankly, it sounds more like you just want to get your way. Others here want to make the best decision for the encyclopedia. Presented with an overwhelming number of reasons he should not be in the navbox, you continue to repeat the same arguments, all of which have been refuted. For example, A reliable source, national newspaper USA Today, directly says that he is a national champion along with the rest of his team despite not playing any minutes. The point has been raised that such statement is being taken out of context. Yet, you repeat it without offering a rebuttal to that assessment. Keep in mind, as has previously been noted, the team manager may have also been given an opportunity to cut the nets. Such manager may also get a ring and make a trip to the White House. Houston can really do whatever they want in this regard. If he does get a ring, I'm happy for him. As I said previously, I'm sure he worked hard in practice this season. But so did the kid who launders the towels, and no one thinks he belongs in the navbox.

Denying him "national champion" status because you think he doesn't deserve it is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Again, there is no such thing as Wikipedia national championship status. This is not about what I or you or anyone else thinks Rioux "deserves". It is about what is the most informative and least misleading presentation for the encyclopedia.

How many other members of the team didn't play a single minute? We don't know because that stat isn't tracked as something that matters. Actually, yes we can find that out, and yes, it does matter. Unlike professional sports, the NCAA has years of eligibility rules. This means it matters very much. We can see that Houston had 17 players on their roster.^[1] We can also see that Houston had 16 players on their statistics report.^[2] The smallest number of minutes by a player on the statistics report is 2:29 by Kevin Pazmino, who was clearly a member of the team. He appeared in three games. Olivier Rioux is the only player on the roster, who does not appear on the statistics report. So, no one else on the roster didn't play a single minute. Rioux is the only one.

How far are we going to go with this? I hope not much longer. Please carefully consider the points that have been raised, and you'll realize Rioux does not belong in the navbox. Taxman1913 (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Curry's SRCBB profile does not list "NCAA champion".[1]. Are there other sources that call them champions? —Bagumba (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the same site says Walter Clayton Jr. is a national champion, but Rioux is not. That’s because he was not an eligible member of the team this season. Rikster2 (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Curry not having national champion denoted in his Sports-Reference profile speaks volumes. This alone is evidence that Rioux is not a national champion as provided by the single most reliable, third-party college basketball source out there. In other words, it's not original research to exclude Rioux. Moreover, every WikiProject is allowed to set its own standards. WP:CBBALL set this standard 20 years ago and it's for the greater good, and nobody up until the other day was butt hurt by the decision. In fact, all WP:CBBALL editors have agreed with and leaned into the idea that redshirts who don't play are not qualified to be national champions in the infoboxes or navboxes. SportsGuy789 (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published website "Sports Reference dot com" is absolutely not the "single most reliable, third-party college basketball source out there" and their chosen markup of national champion players says nothing about what we should do on Wikipedia. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." This stats website is a WP:TERTIARY source. The reliable, published secondary sources on the matter are in full agreement that Olivier Rioux was an active, eligible player on the Gators' roster during the entire season and in the national championship game. Every WikiProject is not allowed to set their own standards: we all must follow Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per Taxman above, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. You cherry picked one sentence from an article where the author was flippantly referring to Rioux as a national champion, it doesn't mean he was. Also, yes, each WikiProject can set its own standards. I'm not saying they can go against original research. But what I am saying is that your assertion that Rioux is a champion is just as original as the opposite. Also, whatever the guys over at WP:CFB decided (which was never definitive) does not impact WP:CBBALL. And, you obviously don't know anything about Sports Reference LLC if you think they're as unreliable as you claim. A blog - lol. SportsGuy789 (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Rioux was clearly an active, suited-up player on the roster of the Florida Gators' national championship-winning team, per every available source.

You have still provided no reliable, third-party, secondary source saying that Olivier Rioux is not a national champion. Please provide a reliable secondary source that says he was not.

PK-WIKI (talk) PK-WIKI (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sportskeeda is a global sports and esports media platform, founded in 2009, that covers a wide range of sports and esports, offering news, articles, live coverage, and videos, serving over 100 million fans monthly. It is the flagship brand of Absolute Sports. Sportskeeda has full transparency of their editorial process here. Per this article: NCAA rules state that he will not receive a championship ring. He can, however, have a piece of the championship nets ... Olivier Rioux did not play in the Florida Gators' NCAA championship run because he took a redshirt year ... Rioux was not on the court for the Florida Gators when they won the March Madness championship game against the Houston Cougars. As a result, he will not receive a championship ring. According to NCAA rules, players are only eligible to receive a ring or award for winning a championship if they were eligible to play. "Awards for winning an individual or team conference or national championship may be presented each year, limited in value and number as specified in Figure 16-2. Awards for winning a conference or national championship in a team sport may be provided only to student-athletes who were eligible to participate in the championship event." Since Rioux was redshirting, he was not eligible to play in the championship game and will not receive a ring.

He was ineligible, point blank period. Stop looking more foolish each time you say he was eligible. Furthermore, the NCAA literally defines him as ineligible to win a championship ring. But let me guess, you're going to try and dodge and deflact that damning point by saying "a rInG dOeSn'T mEaN wE cAn'T pUt HiM oN a NaVboX!" which yes, that's exactly what it means. SportsGuy789 (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTSKEEDA is listed as Generally Unreliable" at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources: Sportskeeda is considered generally unreliable due to a consensus that there is little or no editorial oversight over the website's content, which is largely user-written.

I can understand why it's considered "generally unreliable", because the particular article you posted makes an obvious factual error: "Since Rioux was redshirting, he was not eligible to play in the championship game and will not receive a ring." We have already covered this. He WAS eligible to play in the national championship game. His coach could have substituted him at any point during the game. The New York Times (which is a reliable source) wrote an entire article last year about this very situation: a "redshirt" player being substituted into an end-of-season championship game.

The NCAA guidelines quoted in your article only support my position. Rioux was eligible to play; thus he is eligible for a national championship ring. Your Sportskeeda article even directly states "players who are eligible to play but did not get playing time are still eligible to receive a ring." PK-WIKI (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PK, I have to partially agree with you on the Sportskeeda article. Before you posted your most recent comment, I was already reviewing the Division I Manual to verify the author's statement about no ring being permitted, because Rioux was ineligible. It is my understanding that redshirt status is never confirmed until the season is over, and the player remains eligible even after requesting a redshirt season. My review of the Manual confirms that notion. Not inserting Rioux into a game is the result of a voluntary decision necessary to qualify him as a redshirt. Todd Golden literally made that decision during every second of every game they played this season.

But here's where we disagree. The Division I Manual says: The awards limitations of Bylaw 16.1 apply to awards received by a student-athlete for participation in competition while representing the student-athlete's institution. Such awards may not include cash or cash equivalents, gift certificates or gift cards that are redeemable for cash (original amount or any balance thereof), or a country club or sports club membership.^[3]: 202 We can clearly see here why Rioux cannot be given a national championship ring (which I didn't know prior to digging into this). It would violate section 16.1.1.2 of the Division I Manual, since it would not be for "participation in competition while representing the student-athlete's institution" as the Manual requires. Practicing and traveling with the team is not participating in competition while representing Florida. In order to meet that standard, a player would need to appear in a regulation game. Based on this, I disagree with Sportskeeda that a player who sat on the bench all year without applying for a redshirt would qualify for a ring. The player would not have participated in competition.

If the standard the NCAA is using for recognition (via awards) of student-athletes is participation in competition while representing the institution, why should a different standard be used on Wikipedia to identify student-athletes as having been so recognized? I don't see any justification for doing so; this is a bright-line, easy-to-understand rule. The NCAA is the organization that awards the team basketball championship and decides which players on the winning team may receive awards in recognition of contributing to such. Is Wiipedia in a position to correct some sort of error or oversight by the NCAA with regard to the competition the NCAA administers?

We continue to see the USA Today article referenced in this thread without a rebuttal to the assertion that this is not reliable, because WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

Suppose Rover and Fido are finalists in a dog show. Rover is voted the winner and entitled to a large pile of bones. During the ceremony in which Rover is being recognized, Fido dashes toward the pile of bones, grabs one and runs off. A journalist reports this by writing, "Fido showed he's a champ, too, as he swiped a bone from Rover's stash." Does that statement make Fido co-champion, if it was published by a reliable source? Of course not. Rioux is Fido.

Oddly, this is continually brought up by PK-WIKI, who has already asked how far we are going to go with this. I suppose we're going to go as far as PK-WIKI takes us by continuing to raise arguments that have been refuted by a broad consensus of contributors to this thread. I'll ask you again, PK, to please review all that has been said above about this matter. It appears you are not objective. Please try your very best to be so. Look at the arguments you are making with skepticism. I truly believe that you will be able to see that Rioux simply does not belong in the navbox. Taxman1913 (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into the NCAA regulations. I agree that a "redshirt" season is determined after the season is over. The student athlete is on the active roster and remains eligible to play during the season itself, but if they end up not playing then they are automatically granted an extra year of eligibility. There is no official "declaration" of intent to redshirt either by the school or player, and at no point is the player "ineligible" or "inactive". Todd Golden easily could have substituted Rioux into the final play of the national championship game, just like any other player on the team.

Your other quoted regulation mentions "awards received by a student-athlete for participation in competition while representing the student-athlete's institution." I don't read this _nearly_ as strictly as you are. Rioux traveled to participate in competitions while representing Florida, and, crucially, suited up and was ready to play at a moment's notice in the competition at the direction of his head coach. He participated in the competition by being one of a small number of elegible substitutes, just like the other benchwarmers on his team. I seriously doubt the NCAA is making a hard-and-fast requirement for played game minutes in this three-decimal subsection of their regulations. I do not think this regulation will be used to prevent him from getting a ring, and I reject that your interpretation of this subsection is how the NCAA would interpret it.

I'm not sure why you would say "It appears you are not objective." I have no ties to either team in the finals and just learned about this tall kid yesterday. It's an interesting question for college Basketball and Football redshirt articles, and our coverage here should based on how the awards are handled by the schools, the NCAA, and by reliable third-party secondary sources. I hope others agree.

PK-WIKI (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to not be objective, because you are ignoring points raised by others and engaging in WP:BLUDGEONING by continuing to bring up the same source without addressing WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Taxman1913 (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the discussion that has taken place here and the research it has inspired have taught many of us new things. I, for one, wasn't aware that there is a specific NCAA rule that describes which student-athletes may receive awards like championship rings. I did know there was a value limitation, but it has never been important to me to understand whether they can be given to players who redshirted. I believe that simple logic allows us to conclude that if a player cannot receive a championship ring under NCAA rules, such player is not considered an NCAA champion. Afterall, why would the NCAA consider the player a champion but deny the student-athlete a ring? It is the NCAA's championship and their decision to make.

The rule describing who may receive any award of any sort for representing the student-athlete's institution is cited above from section 16.1.1.2 of the Division I Manual, and it includes a requirement that the award be presented for participating in competition while representing the institution. In my view, that is a standard that is impossible for a player who opted to redshirt during a championship season to have met. The player simply did not "participate in competition". This may not include other types of redshirts. For instance, a player who suffered a season-ending injury in the first game of the season and qualified for a medical redshirt clearly did participate in competition. In contrast, a player who suffered a season-ending injury during the preseason and qualified for a medical redshirt did not participate in competition. A player who opted to redshirt is not, by definition, a member of a championship team under NCAA rules.

PK_WIKI disputes and rejects the plain reading of the Division I Manual, saying: I seriously doubt the NCAA is making a hard-and-fast requirement for played game minutes in this three-decimal subsection of their regulations. I do not think this regulation will be used to prevent him from getting a ring, and I reject that your interpretation of this subsection is how the NCAA would interpret it. I dispute the suggestion that a plain reading of the rule constitutes my interpretation. Rather, a plain reading is likely the "interpretation" of nearly everyone on earth other than PK-WIKI. It has been my observation that the NCAA enforces all its rules, including those in three-digit subsections. A few years ago, Oklahoma State was punished with a poastseason ban over a payment (I believe $150) that was less than the value of a championship ring. The payment was made by an assistant coach, who was terminated, to a player without the head coach's knowledge and self-reported by the school to the NCAA. So, the pure speculation on the part of PK-WIKI, speculation PK-WIKI cannot support with a reliable source, that the NCAA will decide to give a special pass to Florida and Rioux, while ignoring its own rules, is inconsistent with the observable reality on the ground.

I propose that this project adopt a guideline for notations of any sort that a player in NCAA competion was a member of a championship team, including, but not limited to, national champion, conference tournament champion or conference regular-season champion. Such guideline should read: NCAA players may be identifed as a member of a championship team, whether such championship is national or conference, only if such player qualifies under NCAA rules as a valid recipient of awards permitted to be presented to members of such championship team.

Since PK-WIKI has disputed the plain reading of the Division I Manual, I further propose the project adopt a second guideline, which, in my opinion, should not be necessary but has become so due to PK-WIKI's WP:BLUDGEONING. Such guideline should read: Where the plain language of any NCAA legislation is clear, alternative or speculative interpretations of such language should not influence any pages covered by this project. Taxman1913 (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adopt both of the proposed guidelines. Taxman1913 (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason we prefer secondary sources, and avoid using WP:PRIMARY sources, on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Reliable sources says (emphasis mine) we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians, who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. and When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]).

Your interpretation of this NCAA guideline primary source document is exactly the type of original research the policies above are warning against. Taking the NCAA phrase "participation in competition while representing the student-athlete's institution" to mean the hard-and-fast binary of "has game minutes in the statistics report" is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I think it's more likely to encompass other aspects of "participation" in "competition", such as serving as a suited-up, eligible, substitute player on the official roster who can immediately be relied upon to enter the game. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:PK-WIKI could have simply voted to reject my proposals. Instead, the WP:BLUDGEONING continues. We have been treated to a discussion of why WP:SECONDARY sources are preferable to WP:PRIMARY sources. I completely agree that secondary sources are preferable. However, in this case, no secondary source has been offered that says Rioux is a national champion. PK-WIKI continues ignoring that the source he offered violates WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. PK-WIKI instead pretends that the point has not been brought up in an effort to continue his crusade to get others to agree that Rioux is a national champion. In the absence of any secondary source that says anything about Rioux's status, I've used a plain reading of a primary source that demonstrates Rioux is not entitiled to any award that would be presented to his teammates in recognition of Florida's national championship. A primary source is better than no source. PK-WIKI attempts to mislead others by saying I interpreted the phase "participation in competition while representing the student-athlete's institution" to mean "has game minutes in the statistics report". I made no such interpretation. In fact, I made no interpretation at all, because none is necessary to understand what the words mean. Anyone, other than perhaps PK-WIKI, who is fluent in English can understand what participation in competition means. There is no doubt that it means appearing in a game. If we are uncertain whether Rioux appeared in a game, we can consult the NCAA Statistics report and see that he did not. Therefore, Rioux did not participate in competition. Instead of relying on the primary source, which is the only reliable source found so far, PK-WIKI prefers to make a speculative guess out of thin air that the NCAA will ignore its own rule and tell Florida and Rioux that they are entitled to special treatment, perhaps on the advice of PK-WIKI that the NCAA should ignore its own rules. This literally comes from nowhere and is supported by nothing. It is a figment of PK-WIKI's imagination. The NCAA's track record of enforcement has been detailed above in a case involving a value less than that permissible for a championship ring. So, there is absolutely no basis for PK-WIKI to support his position, and, predictably, he has offered none. PK-WIKI has accused me of engaging in WP:OR, when my reasoning was based on a plain reading of the source document. Yet, he imagines that he is not engaging in original research, as he makes up speculative alternative facts that do not exist and are not supported by the only available source, which happens to be primary. PK-WIKI has cherry-picked material from Wikipedia's No original research page and then twisted facts to suit his needs. He left out: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. The plain reading of the Manual I did above is exactly that. Any educated person can read the Manual and verify the fact that Rioux may not receive an award as a national champion, because he is not considered one by the NCAA, which admininsters the championshop, because he did not participate in competition during the season. No interpretation is required. In contrast, PK-WIKI would like to see Rioux in the national champion navbox without offering any reliable source as to why he should be there. Even if the primary source is ignored, leaving no source at all, should Rioux's name appear in the navbox simply because PK-WIKI wants it there? Should we all just let PK-WIKI go ahead and violate WP:MADEUP? Taxman1913 (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are accusing me of bludgeoning yet continue to post walls of text like that... The fact remains that your supposed "plain reading" of the NCAA document is up for interpretation and is exactly the behavior explicitly disallowed: "Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves".

As I recently posted to the CFB wikiproject, player T.J. Downing redshirted on the 2002 Ohio State Buckeyes football team that won the national championship. The national championship ring that this redshirt was awarded for the season (huh?!?!) became a central focus of the Tattoogate scandal a decade later and the ring's existence is well documented.

Since you previously posted "I believe that simple logic allows us to conclude that if a player cannot receive a championship ring under NCAA rules, such player is not considered an NCAA champion. Afterall, why would the NCAA consider the player a champion but deny the student-athlete a ring?", I hope you'll agree that a redshirt player who did not play in any games actually being awarded a national championship ring seems to undercut your argument that they can't be awarded rings. PK-WIKI (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PK-WIKI, even though this attempt on your part to throw something at the wall and see whether it sticks is WP:SYNTHESIS, since you're using a fact from the 2002 football season to draw a conclusion about the 2024–25 men's basketball season, I tracked down the relevant points to determine whether there some validity to such a conclusion. First, I confirmed from the 2003 Ohio State football media guide that Downing saw absolutely no action during the 2002 football season. This eliminates the possibility that he might have played early in the season, suffered an injury and qualified for a medical redshirt. He was just a straight-up optional redshirt during his freshman academic year. Next, I consulted the 2002–03 Division I Manual to determine whether the rules for awards were different. Here's what I found in section 16.1.1.2: The awards limitations of Bylaw 16.1 apply to awards received by a student-athlete while enrolled during the academic year (i.e., from the beginning of the fall term through completion of the spring term, including any intervening vacation period) as a regular student in a minimum full-time academic load, or awards received by a student-athlete while representing the student-athlete's institution at any other time. Such awards may not include cash, gift certificates, a cash-equivalent award (i.e., an item that is negotiable for cash or trade or other services, benefits or merchandise) for athletics participation, or a country club or sports club membership. Section 16.1.4.3 says: Awards for winning an individual or team conference or national championship may be presented each year, limited in value and number as specified in Figure 16-1. Awards for winning a conference or national championship in a team sport may be provided only to student-athletes who were eligible to participate in the championship event. The total value of any single award received for a conference or national championship may not exceed $300, and each permissible awarding agency is subject to a separate $300 limit per award. Each permissible awarding agency may provide only a single award for each championship to each student-athlete. Separate awards may be presented to both the regular-season conference champion and the postseason conference champion (with a separate $300 limitation), but if the same institution wins both the regular-season and postseason conference championship, the combined value of both awards shall not exceed $300.^{[4]: 199–200} The phrase "participation in competition" does not appear in the 2002–03 Manual. A plain reading says that it was permissible for Downing to receive a ring if he was attending Ohio State full time and eligible to participate in the 2003 Fiesta Bowl, which we can take a leap of faith and assume that is what the NCAA means by "championship event", since the Division I-A championship was unofficial. The missing phrase "participation in competition" means that, even if we ignore the prohibtion against synthesizing, we cannot conclude that what happened after the 2002 football season will be repeated for the 2024–25 men's basketball season. The rules are different. We still have no source, a reliable secondary one or otherwise, that supports the notion that Rioux is a national champion. Further, since the phrase "participation in competition" now appears in the Manual, common sense leads to the conclusion that it was added with intent and that the NCAA really does plan to enforce it. Of course, that's an interpretive statement of a primary source on my part, and it cannot, therefore, be determinative. Nevertheless, we do not need to be blind to it. Taxman1913 (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have still provided no reliable, third-party, secondary source saying that Olivier Rioux is not a national champion. While it might be more straightforward if such a source is found, it's also not necessarily reasonable to expect sources to exist stating everything that is potentially untrue. Ultimately, even with sources on either side, WP:ONUS is a a guiding policy:

While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article.

—Bagumba (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view and No original research are also policies.

It's trivially easy to provide citations that Rioux was an eligible freshman basketball player on the active roster of the team that won the NCAA national championship. WP:DUE weight would thus be to include him in the national championship navbox, annotate his page with the national champion highlight, etc. just like the other players on the team.

Meanwhile, those on the other side of this argument have still provided ZERO reliable secondary sources even hinting at the fact that he should not be considered a national champion. Why are we even having this discussion without a single source posted that makes that accusation? PK-WIKI (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view and No original research are also policies: And it's all decided by another policy, WP:CONSENSUS. —Bagumba (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. PK-WIKI (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But how do we decide what is neutral? Consensus (unless it's so egregious that an admin would override it, but that wouldn't seem like the case here). —Bagumba (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, those on the other side of this argument have still provided ZERO reliable secondary sources even hinting at the fact that he should not be considered a national champion. Why are we even having this discussion without a single source posted that makes that accusation? We have a primary source, the NCAA Division I Manual, which says Rioux is not entitled to awards for championship team members. PK-WIKI continues WP:BLUDGEONING, since there is also no reliable secondary source that says Rioux is a national champion, because the USA Today article is excluded by WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. There is also no reliable secondary source that say I, PK-WIKI or Donald Trump are not members of Florida's national championship team. Do the three of us belong in the navbox as well? Taxman1913 (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivially easy to cite that Oliver Rioux was one of 17 players on the Florida Gators basketball team active roster. It's also trivially easy to cite that you, I, or the president were not members of the team.

That basketball team just won the NCAA national championship. Ergo, members of the team are national champions. Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. It's the very definition of the term in a team sport. Benchwarmers are national champions just like the starters.

If you're going to insist that the WP:SKYISRED, you need to produce something indicating doubt from a reliable secondary source. So far, no one has. In this entire thread no one has posted even the slimmest indication that Rioux should not be considered a national champion. Why are we having the conversation? Please provide a reliable secondary source indicating anything in that regard. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PK-WIKI, it is you claiming the sky is red. It is trivially easy to cite that Rioux was on the roster. Ergo, members of the team are national champions. Can you provide a reliable secondary source to support that assertion? Can you provide a reliable secondary source that describes what is meant by "members of the team" in your statement? Of course, you cannot, because none exists. You are hoping to convince other editors to engage in WP:MADEUP. In the absence of any source, we don't simply put something on Wikipedia, just because there is no source proving it untrue. As I said above, we will not be able to find a source saying that you, I or Donald Trump were not 2025 NCAA men's basketball champions. We will also not find a source that definitively says Rioux was an NCAA champion. In this entire thread no one has posted even the slimmest indication that Rioux should not be considered a national champion. That statement is so far from the truth that it is laughable. It is another example of WP:BLUDGEONING by PK-WIKI. Taxman1913 (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If discussion here reaches an impasse and/or any editors believe this project is forming a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS contrary to site policies and guidelines, the options at WP:DR can be considered for wider community input. Left guide (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on redshirt status I am going to say this one more time, because the same arguments are being repeated in walls of text. That coach Todd Golden “could have” played Rioux at any time is just not a valid argument at this point in time. Could the coach have played Rioux during the season? Yes. But we are past the end of the season (which is why we can say Florida are champions at all) and Golden did not do this, and in exchange he ensured that Rioux was not active this season, so instead is eligible for the 2028-29 season. The book is closed on the season, and Coach Golden’s actions ensured Rioux was not active on the roster for 2024-25. Arguing that he was active based on what could have happened but didn’t is not a sound argument and I’m not sure it’s even in good faith. Rikster2 (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So at that final timeout in the NCAA national championship game, Rioux was just a normal freshman on the team. Todd Golden could have substituted him in for the final play. Rioux was eligible and on the active roster, just waiting for his chance. The clock ticks down 0:00 and the gators are NATIONAL CHAMPIONS. But also at that very second, Rioux becomes NOT a national champion because he didn't get 0:01 seconds of game time. He can't celebrate their national championship with his fellow benchwarmers who got 2:29 and 4:10 of garbage time back in November, scoring 0 points. The NCAA withholds his ring.

  That's an interesting opinion, but it's WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Please provide a reliable secondary source that supports your position. PK-WIKI (talk) PK-WIKI (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Congratulations, PK-WIKI, you have finally understood how it works. Rioux gets no ring and is not a national champion. It's not an opinion, and it's not original research. No secondary source has yet been found to either support or contradict it, but a primary source supports it by its plain language without the need for interpretation. So, we can just put this to bed now. Taxman1913 (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • That’s just it, man. Rioux was NOT an active player this season, and his article is sourced that this was the coach’s plan since the first month of the season. The coach COULD have activated him at any time by inserting him into a game and chose not to, so it’s a moot point. That is how a redshirt works and if anything it is WP:OR to treat it differently. Almost a case of Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue you might say. This discussion has gotten ridiculously long and repetitive and now I am going to choose not to be a part of it any longer. If some admin comes across this discussion and thinks this is actually some case of original research, then this site is further gone than I have begun to suspect. Rikster2 (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins don't have any special power in content decisions. Just like other editors, individual admins sometimes have rogue viewpoints on certain issues that don't necessarily represent sitewide consensus. If they use their tools to enforce their view against consensus, then that's a problem, but otherwise it's fine. Left guide (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Since this whole wall of text above seems to be mostly about whether or not to include Rioux in the navbox, let me just say that this entire discussion is causing me to revisit my opinion on whether or not we should continue maintaining this entire class of national champion navboxes at all. In the past, I've always argued at TfD that, at least for college football and basketball, they were worth maintaining, but now I'm not so sure. Just go ahead and delete the navbox, and then we don't have to waste all our time arguing about whether to include Rioux in it or not. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      @Ejgreen77: Wall of text aside, Template:2025 Florida Gators men's basketball navbox and Olivier Rioux have been stable. Consensus is often reached without unanimity, though it's good that WP:AGF discussions are attempted as part of dispute resolution.—Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2021–22 Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball team won the 2022 NCAA Division I men's basketball championship game on April 4, 2022. On October 13, 2022, before the next season, Kansas unveiled the previous team's national championship banner and national championship rings at the annual "Late Night in the Phog" event.

The national championship ring presentation is available online.

Head coach Bill Self begins the presentation by awarding national championship rings to four players who were members of the last year's 2021–2022 national championship team. Three of them had been eligible to play in any game that season, but did not record any game minutes. The fourth was an incoming transfer who was forced to sit out a year and was ineligible to play in the games. EDIT: The fourth was also eligible, as a grad transfer.

• Dillon Wilhite — Non-scholarship walk-on, intentional redshirt season; 0 minutes played in 2021–2022; 7, 14, and 23 minutes played in the next 3 seasons.
  • Lawrence Journal-World: "Dillon Wilhite, a nonscholarship player from San Diego, who once earned a national championship ring as part of the 2021-22 Kansas team..."
• Charlie McCarthy — Invited walk-on; 0 minutes played in 2021–22... or in 2023, or 2024. Seemingly zero minutes played in entire college career (Ouch). Great-grandfather was Howard Engleman whose number 5 is retired by KU.
  • The Desert Sun story: "Desert grad plays key role for Kansas basketball during NCAA Tournament run" - "McCarthy is a freshman guard on the Jayhawks' team and though he is redshirting this year and has not played, he has an important role."
• Kyle Cuffe Jr. — Scholarship player; intentional redshirt season; reclassified from 2022 to 2021; 0 minutes played in 2021–2022.
  • Syracuse.com interview: "For my freshman year I won a national championship. I was spoiled right from the get-go."
• Cam Martin — Redshirt due to incoming transfer from Missouri Southern. Ineligible to play in games for Kansas. EDIT: Apparently was a grad transfer; eligible but intentionally decided not to play and take a redshirt season.
  • KOAM-TV News story: Cam Martin returns as a national champion, helps teach and inspire local athletes - He redshirted last year and has one year of eligibility remaining. ... Martin’s continued perseverance has now earned him a national championship.
• Followed by rings for all of the other players on last year's team...

The 2021-22 NCAA Division I Manual^: 236 Awards section 16.1.1.2 does contain the same phrase "awards received by a student-athlete for participation in competition while representing the student-athlete's institution" (emphasis mine) that is still present in the current manual.

All four of these men have been awarded national championship rings that they earned as players on the NCAA tournament-winning national champion 2021–22 Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball team.

The rings were awarded in exactly the same manner, with no differentiation from, and in the very same presentation, as the rings awarded to the team's star players, starters, substitutes, and benchwarmers. They were all members of the same national championship team, after all. Accordingly, these four should be noted as national champions in all places where Ochai Agbaji (Kansas's Final Four Most Outstanding Player) is given that markup. Current article Cam Martin should be added to Template:2022 Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball navbox and denoted as a redshirt due to transfer. PK-WIKI (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kyle Cuffe Jr., a player calling himself "national champion" in an interview isn't very useful because it's unduly self-serving. WP:ABOUTSELF #1 permits self-verification only when

The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim

Better to have independent sources for that one. Left guide (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are 'Sports-Reference.com' websites reliable sources for redshirt seasons and awards?. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]