Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College basketball

WikiProject College basketball
Overview Project page talk Participants talk Project category talk Departments Assessment (log) talk Article alerts talk Cleanup listing Unassessed articles (1362) Unknown importance (9635) Recognized content Featured articles (21) Featured lists (17) Good articles (273) Total WPCBB articles (59588)
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 • edit • changes

Are redshirts who didn't play considered national champions?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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. We can also see that Houston had 16 players on their statistics report. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  • 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)

    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)

    • 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)

      @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)

2022 Kansas national championship rings awarded to four redshirt players

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 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)

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)

Disagree that Cuffe stating that he won a national championship is "unduly self-serving" or an "exceptional claim". Every existing reliable source places him on the active roster of the team that won the team-sport national championship. He was awarded a national championship ring for winning the national championship, exactly the same as every other member of his team. No "prevailing view within the relevant community" can be found that cast doubt on his statement. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Every single source says Cuffe was a redshirt that year and was granted another year of eligibility by the sport’s governing body (the NCAA) specifically because he was held out that entire season. Ergo, he was not “active” on the roster. This is indisputable. Teams can give rings to whomever they want, that’s not proof of a national championship for that player. If the U of Houston had won and decided to give a ring to Hakeem Olajuwon or Jim Nance (not a stretch of the imagination) that doesn’t make them active members of the team. Rikster2 (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The NCAA can give out another year of eligibility to whomever they want, that’s not not proof of a national championship for that player. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC) PK-WIKI (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

@Taxman1913 since you never replied, wanted to make sure that you saw the above reliable sources confirming that multiple "redshirt" members of the Kansas team were awarded national championship rings. I guess your "plain reading" of the NCAA guideline wasn't so simple after all. Do you still think "Rioux gets no ring and is not a national champion."? What's going to happen this fall?

Should we still adopt your proposed guideline NCAA players may be identifed [sic] 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.? PK-WIKI (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@PK-WIKI I did read all the information you posted. I do not think my proposed guideline should be adopted, because, even though it is based on clear NCAA rules, at least some teams are apparently ignoring those rules. The reality on the ground differs from the outcome that should be predictable from the printed page. Taxman1913 (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

So your reading of the NCAA guideline is still correct, it's the schools that are wrong. Come on. At least try to hide the original research. PK-WIKI (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@PK-WIKI Nearly every educated person who understands English would read it the same way, which means it is not WP:OR. I answered your question in the way you wanted, and you still replied with a nasty tone. Please just take your crusade to WP:DR. Taxman1913 (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:PSTS All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. PK-WIKI (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

2025 Florida updates

In the weeks since Olivier Rioux cut down the nets as an active member of the Florida Gators NCAA tournament-winning national championship team, there have been some developments:

• Florida honored the team at halftime of the football Spring Game on April 12. Rioux was tasked with holding a big sign, "NATIONAL CHAMPIONS 2025", above the fellow members of his national championship team while celebrating their accomplishment.
• The team traveled to the White House to meet the president. Rioux, an active-roster player on the national championship-winning team being celebrated at the White House, was given special attention for his height by the President of the United States.
• His Florida Gators team profile has been updated to include: "A member of Florida’s 2025 national championship team."

During this coverage, no reliable source has cast any doubt on Olivier Rioux being a "national champion".

At this point it's very clear that the Florida Gators consider him a member of the national championship team. He will 100% be getting a national championship ring as a player this fall.

I know that some participants here value accuracy and for our articles to mirror the coverage found in reliable third-party sources. @Left guide? @Bagumba? It's time for other editors to speak up and for us to correct this strange convention of this Wikiproject that does not at all match the treatment given to redshirts by the press or by their schools.

PK-WIKI (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

At this point, I'd suggest pursuing the steps at WP:Dispute resolution. This issue has become too protracted for me to care much anymore. There doesn't appear to be consensus for the edits you wish to make, and I'm doubtful that further local discussion here will change that. Left guide (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@PK-WIKI, I agree with @Left guide that you should take this to WP:DR. Unless I'm not reading the room well, it appears the vast majority of folks who have commented simply feel that labeling Rioux as a national champion, when he never actually played for the championship team is inappropriate and misleading to readers. It would be equivalent, in my mind, to giving player-level champion status to a team manager or to a male practice squad member for a women's team championship. I recognize netiher of those two are on the roster or eligible to have played. But the season ended, and Rioux never set foot on the floor. That puts him in the same class as a manager or practice squad player. Taxman1913 (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

"But the season ended, and Rioux never set foot on the floor. That puts him in the same class as a manager or practice squad player."

More blatant WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. PK-WIKI (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@PK-WIKI You continue to ignore WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:LISTEN. Following common sense, as the overwhelming majority of commenters on this thread have done, makes WP:OR irrelevant. You do not see that, because you ignore WP:LISTEN, which is disruptive. There is no one other than you who wishes to continue this coversation. Taxman1913 (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, if we're going to revive this dormant discussion and ping individual editors while doing so, we should be pinging everyone previously involved to avoid any possibility of canvassing. Pinging the remaining participants: @SportsGuy789, Rikster2, and Ejgreen77:. Left guide (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

There's User:Taxman1913 too. —Bagumba (talk) 07:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware, but Taxman1913 was already pinged in the above sub-section around the same time. Left guide (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I claim TLDR. —Bagumba (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Also pinging @DetroitFan7, @Elirbosley, @ToucannonSam, @Jauerback per relevant edits at Olivier Rioux. PK-WIKI (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

No opinion. I only reverted you because you kept forcing your preferred version, without any consensus, knowing full well that this dicussion was going on to establish a consensus. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

.. correct this strange convention ...: It's not a clear-cut situation, and there's arguments against listing him as "champion" also. So the community is left to pick among the imperfect options. —Bagumba (talk) 07:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Are there? What are the arguments? I've been asking for reliable sources that express any doubt about his status as 'national champion' this entire time. No one has posted any.

The best (only!) argument against are the profiles at the self-published tertiary website "Sports Reference dot com". And the WP:SPORTSKEEDA article that's blatantly wrong.

Meanwhile we have all of the above reliable source articles that include him amongst the other national champions on his team without any differentiation. And of course the Managing Editor of a USA Today sports property directly stating "Still, he's a national champion like the rest of his team...".

PK-WIKI (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Same argument that has always been true - he was not an active member of the championship squad. The same bio you linked clearly labels it as a redshirt season (which was never in question) “Took a redshirt season to work on strength, conditioning and agility. Competed on the Gators’ scout team.” The Florida scout team did not win a national championship. The NCAA says he didn’t play last year and Wikipedia has always placed high value in players actually playing (application of player categories, etc.) You can’t keep your pet project alive forever, no one except you is still talking about this, which is why it was archived. Later. Rikster2 (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Again, no sources posted even hinting at this. Remember that your original argument was that Rioux was not an "eligible" player on the basketball team. He clearly was. Now you've retreated to him not being an "active member" of the championship squad, a term that does not have any basis in determining members of the national championship roster. The term you're looking for is "redshirt", and per reliable sources the proper treatment of redshirts on a roster is to include them in tables and prose and denote them as a "(redshirt)".

Florida's scout team DID win the national championship; the "scout team" being made up of the members of the Gators' 17-player roster that didn't see regular playing time. In this TEAM sport they are just as much national champions as the starters.

Surprised others here are interested in peddling this bad information. PK-WIKI (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

To maintain his redshirt status, he was not made eligible by his coach for any game during the season. He was not active and as a result was given an extra year to play by the governing body of college basketball (the NCAA) because he did not play for the team at all. Redshirting is a very straightforward process which coach and player specifically entered into this season. Redshirts don’t play on the team. That’s the definition. Further, acting as if Rioux was an active team member for the season confuses future generations of Wikipedia readers, who would see “National champ” on his article and come to the conclusion that he actually played on the championship team, which he did not. There is no issue with this project drawing the line at being an active member of a squad to be called a “National champion.” It is not WP:OR or anything of the sort. The school is not an unbiased actor in this. In this era of rapid transfers, they have a vested interest in including non-active players in the trappings of a championship team to keep them engaged and enrolled since there is a plan for them in future seasons. Championship rings in and of themselves mean nothing, teams can give them to whomever they want, and generally do. The athletic director typically gets one, was he part of the basketball team? For example, the NBA has a more developed history of awarding them and it’s not an indicator of who is a world champion by Wikipedia or the NBA because former players traded in season frequently get them, but didn’t play for the champs in the playoffs (which of course is where the championship is won - and this is a higher bar than we use for college as these players actually did contribute to the team during the season). Other editors are right - most likely you will need to take this to WP:DR since it’s the same editors (including you) making the same arguments. That’s not going to go anywhere. Rikster2 (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:DRN (dispute resolution noticeboard) more specifically; DR is an informational policy page, with the noticeboard being one of the options listed there. Left guide (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Going there is anyone's prerogative. One should also consider if WP:LISTEN applies. —Bagumba (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:RFC is another option listed at the DR page. Left guide (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Technically, sure, but it's not like this has lacked participants or comments. Are there untapped NCAA redshirt experts lurking? —Bagumba (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

We don't need NCAA redshirt experts, just participants who want to base Wikipedia on reliable sources and not vibes and original research.

Someone other than me posted The connection that "not playing a game for the team" equals "not a national champion" is original research. on the very first day of this discussion.

No one has even tried to refute it with a reliable source. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

That was me who said that. Early on, I saw some merit in your arguments, but your less-than-collaborative approach here has made me disinclined to continue. We don't need NCAA redshirt experts, just participants who want to base Wikipedia on reliable sources and not vibes and original research. Then start an WP:RFC explaining why your position has greater backing in policies and guidelines if you think this project is forming a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. If your position is as right as you seem to think it is, uninvolved outsiders will be able to see it and agree with you. I'd recommend splitting response sections into "involved" and "uninvolved". This back-and-forth among the same cadre of project regulars is going nowhere. Left guide (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

We're not talking about athletic directors or ballboys here, we're talking about a scholarship PLAYER on the roster of the team. Who was eligible and suited up to play in the national championship game and on the active roster. His roster status this season was exactly the same as Walter Clayton Jr.

Redshirting is NOT a "process" that player and coach "specifically enter into", as has already been explained to you.

What's actually going to confuse future generations of Wikipedia readers is seeing him listed on the roster at 2024–25 Florida Gators men's basketball team#Roster but for his Florida career at Olivier Rioux to start at 2025–2026, not 2024. An embarrassing discrepancy between team pages and player pages in this Wikiproject. PK-WIKI (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I don’t need wrong shit “explained to me,” because redshirting is absolutely a process involving ensuring that NCAA regulations are followed (chief among them not playing in any games) in order for the desired result to be achieved (an extra year of eligibility is given to replace the one that wasn’t used). If you are just here to grind your ax, have at it. If you actually want resolution to this you are likely going to have to engage another process because trying to push consensus for your preferred POV hasn’t worked. If you are so sure you are correct you should welcome an independent review. Rikster2 (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

References

1907–08 season

I recently did a lot of research on the 1907–08 season and found some information that was very significant, which I added to 1907–08 IAAUS men's basketball season.

Chicago and Wisconsin were shown as Western (now Big Ten) co-champions. While they finished tied for the regular-season title and split their two games, the tie was, in fact, broken.

Penn, after winning the Eastern (now, sort of, Ivy) title, challenged the Western champion to a matchup for the national championship. In order for the Western Conference to send a team, Chicago and Wisconsin played a tiebreaker playoff game for the conference championship. Wisconsin won the coin flip for the right to host, but Chicago got the win on the road.

Chicago and Penn agreed to play a best-of-three series. Chicago hosted game 1, Penn hosted game 2, and game 3, if necessary, was to be hosted by Columbia in New York. Chicago ended up sweeping the series.

The series got significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Newspapers called it the first ever matchup for a true national championship. There were only three conferences at the time, and the Missouri Valley was in its first season. Newspapers noted that critics of the time were generally of the opinion that Penn and Chicago were worthy representatives of the eastern and western sections of the country, not just of their conferences. Spalding's 1908–9 basketball guide reports on the series and calls it the national championship without question. All contemporaneous evidence indicates this was it. I found nothing contradictory.

I added the Post-season section to the article on the 1907–08 season. I also added specific coding to Template:Infobox NCAA Division I basketball season that will only work on the 1907–08 season article. The intercollegiate national championship series is unique within the pre-NCAA tournament era. It was how the national championship of college basketball was decided. In other pre-tournament years, we don't know who the champion might have been.

I think I've presented this in the best way possible. Please take a look and offer any suggestions or comments you have. Taxman1913 (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

That playoff is good information for the encyclopedia that should be added to all relevant articles and infoboxes.

However I very strongly disagree with overloading the "NCAA tournament" parameters to display it, as you have done. That tournament was in no way an "official", "IAAUS", or "NCAA" tournament. It seems to have been a one-off challenge between schools in a year where there happened to be a good opportunity to settle the "mythical" title. I think you would agree that it would be ridiculous to add this game to List of NCAA Division I men's basketball champions; thus it should not be using those tournaments' infobox parameters.

This tournament and champion should be given very prominent placement in the infobox, but in a way that can be re-used for other pre-NCAA tournament and non-tournament selectors such as those listed at List of college athletics championship game outcomes#Basketball. I fully disagree with the statements The intercollegiate national championship series is unique within the pre-NCAA tournament era. [...] In other pre-tournament years, we don't know who the champion might have been. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@PK-WIKI I don't see what difference it makes to code the parameter the way I did. It is coded in a way that affects only this article, which is the only time we have thus far identified actual postseason games played to determine a national champion. Why would anyone care that I made use of the champ parameter for only this article while changing the labels in the infobox for only this article? Isn't the final result that we see in the article all that matters? I took the easiest path to achieve that result, and it jeopardizes and changes absolutely nothing else. I see zero reason for anyone to complain about the way it is coded.

I have been looking at those other games to which you linked to gather contemporaneous information about them, evaluate what is really there and either proceed accordingly or bring it up for discussion here. The same coding methodolgy I used for the 1908 championship series can be used for any of those that are important enough to make a particular season's infobox. Since I clicked on your link, it reminded me that Pittsburgh's 1930 "national championship game" needs to be deleted. See Talk:Mythical national championship#Pittsburgh men's basketball in 1930. Taxman1913 (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so the 1938 National Invitation Tournament should clearly then be added to the 1937–38 NCAA men's basketball season per your arguments for including the post-season games at 1907–08 IAAUS men's basketball season.

We should then replace the 1939 NCAA basketball tournament with the 1939 National Invitation Tournament in the infobox at 1938–39 NCAA men's basketball season, as the NIT at Madison Square Garden had better teams and a stronger champion than the fledgling NCAA tournament.

United Press tells us that 23–0 Long Island had a "clean claim to the mythical national collegiate championship" as the NIT winner and the nation's only undefeated major team. When 29–5 Oregon won the NCAA a few days later "the national championship is still in a muddle".

As you can see, overloading these fields will quickly become a subjective mess. Better to use them for what they were designed for, the singular, objective NCAA tournament and NCAA championship.

I fully support expanding these infoboxes to better include non-NCAA tournaments and non-NCAA national championships, but that will necessarily mean including post-1938 NIT tournaments and champions. And other subjective/contradictory claims. The fields must be designed to accommodate that. PK-WIKI (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@PK-WIKI I do believe the 1938 NIT was a de facto national championship on par with later NCAA tournaments and the 1908 intercollegiate national championship. Full disclosure: I'm a Temple fan. They are one of the 23 D-I teams I follow with passion. I became a Temple fan in 2015, when I moved to Delaware, so I would have a rooting interest in the Big 5. Nevertheless, as long as I can remember, I've always been of the opinion that the 1938 NIT was easily differentiated from all other NITs, because there was no NCAA tournament. In my opinion, in the article about the 1937–38 season, it should be presented in a manner similar to how Chicago's 1908 championship appears now. It seems inappropriate to use a label that says "Other champions". "Other" than what? That tournament clearly was for the national championship in the minds of anyone following college basketball in 1938. Further, the NIT championship does not below below the Helms Foundation selection. I could easily adjust the coding of the season infobox template to change the label and move the NIT title to the top for 1937–38 only, just as I did for 1907–08. However, I wouldn't do so without consensus here first. Folks have strong opinions about the NIT. Part of the reason for that is that it still exists today. Sadly, it is just a shadow of its former self.

My feelings about the 1939 NIT are different. Full disclosure: I grew up in Brooklyn and was a fan of St. Francis Brooklyn since childhood. St. Francis and Long Island are located about half a mile from each other and were heated rivals, until the Terriers discontinued athletics in 2023. Nevertheless, the title of the article is 1938–39 NCAA men's basketball season. Since the NCAA had a champion in 1939, that champion needs to be shown most prominently, even if it was likely not the best team. (There. I did it. I admitted Long Island was the best team in 1939.) A glance at the infobox shows the team that won the NCAA tournament, the team that won the "other" tournament, which is what the NIT was in 1939, and the team selected by Helms (into which I personally put very little stock). Readers can quickly figure out that there are many who belive the NCAA champion might not have been the best team.

If the title of the article was 1938–39 men's college basketball season, I may reach a different conclusion. Such an article should, of course, include information about the 1939 NAIB tournament, which clearly was notable, based on the press coverage it got. However, that's not the article we have. What exists in an article about the college basketball season of teams that were affiliated with the NCAA, and there is no question that the best teams in college basketball, including Long Island, were NCAA members in 1939.

My opinion about any later season is the same. Whether the NIT champion might have been a better team than the NCAA tournament winning does not mean that an article about the NCAA season should assert that a team other than the NCAA's officially recognized champion is the true champion of that season. The NIT was a major event in each of those seasons, including 2024–25, in which every game was nationally televised. But once there is an official championship, the NIT is an "other" tournament.

The Cincinnati Reds might have been the best team in Major League Baseball in 1981. They had the best regular-season record but didn't get to the postseason, because of the split-season format used that year. They are an MLB team. MLB decided how to determine its champion. The Reds weren't it. In my opinion, Long Island should be treated just like this in 1939.

Starting with the 1938–39 season, nothing can merit the most prominent display in the infobox other than the NCAA tournament winner, the team that is clearly the champion of the NCAA season. There may be other teams with a claim to a mythical national championship, but that information is relayed by showing the NIT result and the Helms selection. Wikipedia cannot make a judgement call that the NCAA somehow got it wrong in determining its own champion. Taxman1913 (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Whether the NIT champion might have been a better team than the NCAA tournament winning does not mean that an article about the NCAA season should assert that a team other than the NCAA's officially recognized champion is the true champion of that season.

But neither should our article necessarily assert that the NCAA champion is the "true" champion, or the "national champion".

But once there is an official championship, the NIT is an "other" tournament.

Not according to the contemporary reliable sources in 1939.

The Cincinnati Reds might have been the best team in Major League Baseball in 1981. They had the best regular-season record but didn't get to the postseason, because of the split-season format used that year. They are an MLB team. MLB decided how to determine its champion. The Reds weren't it. In my opinion, Long Island should be treated just like this in 1939.

They wouldn't be the World Series Champion, or the Super Bowl Champion, but nothing is stopping them from being considered the "national champion" or "best team in baseball" or whatever.

That doesn't appear to be a commonly accepted view for the 1981 Reds, or the 2007 Patriots, so it's not a thing that's mentioned on Wikipedia.

But it WAS a common view in 1939 that NIT champion Long Island, despite not playing in the NCAA tournament, had a claim (and perhaps the BEST claim) on the national championship.

It's a major WP:RECENTISM issue to decide that only the NCAA tournament mattered in 1939. WP:DUE weight requires us to consider all significant viewpoints when determining the national championship. Reliable sources did not consider the 1939 NCAA tournament final to be the sole "national championship game".

Starting with the 1938–39 season, nothing can merit the most prominent display in the infobox other than the NCAA tournament winner, the team that is clearly the champion of the NCAA season.

They were the NCAA champion, but the sources do NOT agree that Oregon was "clearly the champion of the season" aka national champion. I agree that the NCAA tournament/champion should have a prominent display in the infobox, but perhaps in 1939 have equal prominence to the NIT tournament/champion.

There may be other teams with a claim to a mythical national championship, but that information is relayed by showing the NIT result and the Helms selection.

WP:DUE weight requires that we give equal weight "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". The NCAA tournament/champion cannot be given a significantly better treatment than the NIT champion, given the equal treatment of the two tournaments in contemporary sources.

Wikipedia cannot make a judgement call that the NCAA somehow got it wrong in determining its own champion.

The NCAA is free to determine its own champion, but in 1939 their tournament was not the sole determinator of the "national championship". Wikipedia cannot make the judgement call that it was.

This is again why I suggest you keep the NCAA tournament infobox parameters completely separate from other tournament and national championship parameters. It's a bad idea to mix the objective NCAA information with the subjective "mythical" claims. I see the need for an article such as National championships in men's college basketball to match College football national championships if you would be interested in collaborating.

PK-WIKI (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@PK-WIKI You just keep diasgreeing with me, which is what collaboration is all about. Neither of us is likely to convince the other. There isn't a way I would be convinced that in an article titled xxxx–xx NCAA men's basketball season anything could be more (or even just as) prominent as the team the NCAA has designated as its champion. If we were talking about an article titled xxxx–xx college basketball season, that is a different matter. Should that season be 1939, the NIT champion should get at least equal, if not top, billing, because contemporary sources would lead to such a conclusion. Similarly, perhaps in 2032, the College Basketball Crown will attract a better field than the NCAA tournament. If that happens, and the article is about the 2031–32 college basketball season, the Crown might merit top billing. Since the article is about the NCAA season, and the NCAA determined its own champion, the NIT is just a prestigious tournament in which NCAA teams participated.

As for the parameters, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what I did, and I'm not going to waste my time changing it for no reason other than it displeases you. I'll reiterate one final time that the changes I made affect nothing but the 1907–08 article, a year for which there was no NCAA tournament, and the parameter would otherwise be unused. I made efficient use of an existing parameter that was wasted in the 1907–08 article. This was a much easier way to achive the result than to engage in needless elaborate "joy coding" as you insist upon to create a new parameter. As everything stands now, the ability to make tailored changes for any other pre-tournament season is not at all hampered.

Championships won by popularity contests don't interest me very much, no matter how much research and analysis goes into them. I have little respect for the Helms Foundation selections, particularly since these seem to be opinions of one individual with little research or anlaysis done. In fact, if the Helms Foundation championships were not cited by the NCAA, I don't think they would be notable by Wikipedia standards. I put stock into championships earned on the field of play. In the end, there is subjectivity involved in the selection of the teams in the first place. For instance, if instead of a two-team series in 1908, there could have been a multi-team tournament, and the champion might have been Bucknell or Kansas or Wabash. We'll never know, because they were excluded. But in my view, a two-team playoff is superior to crunching numbers or subjective voting. So, I can't say I would have a lot of passion for the article you're proposing. When I see in the football version that two selectors chose Oregon as the 2024 champion, I find it ridiculous. Why not go back and say that the Twins won the 1987 World Series, but the Cardinals were the true champions, because they had a better season? With a 12-team playoff, and every team having theoretical access, I think we are well past questioning whether the CFP winner is the true national champion. Nevertheless, if you're writing the article and wish to contact me, please feel free to drop a note on my talk page. Taxman1913 (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Changes made to team infobox

I made two changes to the team infobox.

First, I noticed that NAIA round of 16 appearances were still showing up for teams that reached the NAIA quarterfinals or better. This was not the intention of the recent infobox decluttering work. These will now appear only if that is the furthest a team has advanced in the NAIA tournament, which is consistent with second-round appearances in the NCAA and AIAW tournaments.

I added a parameter that only works for the 1907–08 season to show an Intercollegiate national champions section. This can be seen on Chicago Maroons men's basketball. See my comments above for complete details. The parameter will not work if a year other than 1908 is entered. Since I already added it to the Chicago article, I'm not going to add it to the template documentation. It is not needed for any other article. Taxman1913 (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

All-American who went pro in another sport or field

Who is the most recent men's All-American who went pro in another sport or field.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Atlantic Coast Conference women's basketball Rookie of the Year for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Atlantic Coast Conference women's basketball Rookie of the Year is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic Coast Conference women's basketball Rookie of the Year until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Left guide (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)