Talk:Clemson University football recruiting scandal

This article was nominated for deletion on January 21, 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Violations by year

This is an unencyclopedic level of detail. Is there a way to summarize this? / edg ☺ ☭ 01:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is certainly welcome to try and improve the article by doing so. Isn't that the whole point of WIki? I didn't think just because some people don't like the way an article is presented (in its first version, no less) that it becomes fodder for deletion. People are welcome to help present this information in a different manner, but don't try to act like it doesn't deserve to be presented at all. That's simply disingenuous. ViperNerd (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Violations by year section doesn't have a narrative or anything; it's mostly an information dump. I think the way to improve it would be to add a few more illustrative examples to the 2nd paragraph, and simply ditch this list, which can be read on the NCAA link.

The article's length need not be dicated by the number of violations—if there were 300 violations, the article wouldn't need to be 4 times as long. And making the article longer doesn't make it more notable. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The titles

I'm lost ... how is this POV?

The Tigers, however, were allowed to keep their Atlantic Coast Conference titles from 1978 and 1981, as well as the 1981 national title.

From my perspective, these were some major, major, major violations (getting kicked off live TV for two years is telling), so how is noting that they were allowed to keep two conference titles and a national title POV? I'm lost. Blueboy 96 19:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was never implied in the Punishment section that they were stripped of any titles or forced to forfeit the results of any seasons, so bringing them up has no bearing on the topic that is being covered in the article. It's injecting a positive mention about the Clemson football program into a place where it doesn't belong, hence it's POV. Why not also say something like, "Danny Ford was not forced to immediately resign following the NCAA's findings." Because if he was, it would've been mentioned in the first place. It can be ASSUMED that no titles were stripped from the Tigers, otherwise that would've been included as part of their PUNISHMENT. ViperNerd (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree--most of the 1978 and 1981 teams were recruited during the time the violations occurred, so the fact they were allowed to keep their titles is stunning enough it should be in there. I'm surprised--a Gamecock doesn't think that's pretty telling? Blueboy 96 20:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Telling of what, exactly? Are you trying to imply something by the inclusion of this unnecessary information? To my knowledge, titles weren't stripped from programs when Clemson received their 1982 probation, and the death penalty also didn't exist, because it is widely believed that if it had, Clemson would have been the first school to receive the NCAA's stiffest penalty, instead of SMU in 1987. ViperNerd (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's telling of just how lucky the Tigers got ... usually, with violations this serious, you don't get to keep your titles. I've seen titles get stripped for lesser violations than this--according to my research (I've got a 2000 sports almanac on hand), they actually did strip titles back then. The earliest I can recall a title being stripped for a major violation was back in 1933. And the death penalty did exist back then ... just not in its current form, and it hadn't been slapped on a football program at the time. Blueboy 96 20:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, pointing out how "lucky" Clemson was or wasn't would I think definitely fall within the realm of speculation, and as such is not worthy of consideration in an encyclopedic article. Not that I disagree with you, by the way. I think they actually got off pretty light considering the violations they committed and the lengthy period over which not just one, but two separate coaching staffs committed them. But to start discussing this in the article itself would definitely cross the line into POV. Let's just leave well enough alone in this instance. ViperNerd (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting this article

To the editor who arbitrarily decided to split this article: before you take it upon yourself to make an edit this drastic, it's usually customary to have some amount of discussion about it first. I've restored the complete version of the article until this can take place. Your article about the 1990 probation seems too short to stand on its own, but we'll let the WP community decide what is the best way to present this notable material. ViperNerd (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles need to remain split (see 1982 Clemson University football probation and 1990 Clemson University football probation) along with the changes in writing style from sensationalistic to encyclopedic. The lead is not well formatted, using sensationalized statements such as "due to a lengthy history of recruiting violations to gain an athletic advantage." The usage of "1981 National Championship season" is incorrect, it should just be "1981 football season." Instead of "Punishment," "Result of violations" should be used. In the 1990 section, which did not involve recruits, using words such as "Just five years later," "once again found their football program," "found themselves on probation once again," and "second time in less than a decade" are unnecessary. The NCAA did not convict Clemson of having illegal contacts in 1990, only giving $50 to $70 to one player. A portion of the original 1990 accusations were not true according to the conclusion of the NCAA.

I also do not believe the events warrant a "scandal" title; they were probation periods, not a Monica Lewinsky situation.

It must be noted that this article as whole has been nominated for deletion in the past. Other editors have noted that this particular editor is a single purpose account with an agenda to cast Clemson University in a negative light in any way possible. Evidence for this can be found at the user's talk page, where he frequently references to Clemson Tiger fans as "taters." and speaks of the fans/alumni as a whole in an extremely derogatory way. It should also be noted that many of his derogatory and offensive statements have been removed from his talk page, as if we're all dumb enough to not notice. These are a few excerpts (I have added red for emphasis):

ViperNerd (from his user talk page): Ah, the typical response by an ignorant Tater when they realize they've lost an argument. "Well, Carolina doesn't have all our championships, so there!" Pitiful. ViperNerd (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

ViperNerd (from his user talk page): p.s. Every day that Tommy Bowden doesn't suspend a 6-foot, 200-lb linebacker who beat up his 5-foot, 100-lb girlfriend is a black-eye on not only your football program, but Clemson University as a whole, but like most Tiger fans, you apparently think it's all a big joke. Policy at USC is that a student-athlete who is arrested (for ANY reason) is automatically suspended pending legal resolution, it's not up to the coaches. Be honest, which school has the better policy of institutional control? ViperNerd(talk) 17:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

ViperNerd (from his user talk page): Yep, beating Carolina all those years means when one of your players beats on his girlfriend, everything is fine in Tater Nation, it's considered a worthwhile exchange for you rednecks. Obviously, you don't have a sister. You're a pathetic individual. ViperNerd (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

ViperNerd (from his user talk page): Do YOU know the story or are you just desperate to protect one of your precious Taters? I know what I've read in the newspapers and seen reported on TV, that a tiny 19-yo girl was admitted to the hospital and diagnosed by medical professionals with multiple injuries consistent with her story of being physically absued by her football-player boyfriend. Her story and the evidence of her injuries were convincing enough for local police to arrest the linebacker and charge him with assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, and for the police chief to basically say there were no credible witnesses to the crime to convince him otherwise (despite a couple friends of the player who for some reason waited DAYS to tell their version of events, and then not even to the police, but to the player's lawyer via some written statements). Yep, you're right, I don't have a leg to stand on...not like you apparently. You'd like to believe that a young girl threw herself down a flight of stairs or somehow self-inflicted all these documented injuries, I guess in some crazy scheme to get back at her boyfriend for eyeing other women. But it's okay, I understand how you (and most of Tater Nation) are. Pathetic. ViperNerd (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

He also has a long history of removing comments from other users off of article talk pages. I have no idea why this is allowed to go on. See here and here.

All in all, this user obviously has an agenda and an axe to grind. I have rewritten and split the articles for easier understanding. I fully believe that the two versions I have revised and created are superior to the one that currently exists. Once again, those can be found at 1982 Clemson University football probation and 1990 Clemson University football probation. WN1971... A Symbol of Freedom —Preceding comment was added at 17:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split: Well as a Clemson fan, I know right off the bat ViperNerd will attempt to discredit anything I have to say, but my main beef is that the probation in 1982 and 1990 were NOT part of the same "scandal", and no proof has been brought forward that they are. Also, other users have attempted to add in the fact that Clemson was allowed to keep all titles won in the years the violations were committed only to be deleted and scolded by ViperNerd for doing so. I think this is valuable to note, because it helps the reader understand that the violations may have been severe enough to give Clemson an unfair advantage that resulted in multiple championships. That fact alone should make this article more noteworthy. Other schools cheat and get caught, but it's never national news because the cheating didn't result in championships. If we're going to allow articles like this to be created then we need to make sure it's done fairly and objectively, and having an avowed fan of the subject school's rival lead the fight to determine what's objective should be a clear violation of multiple Wikipedia POV rules. Jober14 (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Let's wait and see what ViperNerd has to say. WN1971... A Symbol of Freedom 19:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Not part of the same scandal?" Well, most of the violations occurred under the administration of one head football coach, who also just happens to be the one who won the national championship during this period and is still the most revered coach by Clemson fans. And if "having an avowed fan of the subject school's rival" editing is objectionable, then what would you call having avowed fans of the school ITSELF trying to "lead the fight" to decide what is and isn't relevant for inclusion in an article of this sort? ViperNerd (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is I openly welcome a debate by OTHERS as to what's acceptable and what's not. I also use Wikipedia guidelines when writing my articles. You on the other hand, think you know what the rest of the world should read, and how they should read into it. Wikipedia is for other people to make.... you know what, I'm not going to answer your drivel anymore. I'll listen and respond to others only. If you want to debate which team is better and more respectable, we can take it back to your talk page unless you're going to delete everything again. Jober14 (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split: Factually-unrelated incidents that should be separated into different articles - if an article is even warranted for either - which I don't believe is the case. I nominated the original article for deletion - probably one of the worst Wiki articles ever, and plenty of grounds for deletion (see the AfD nom). The original was essentially just one fabricated statement (to create the "illusion of notability") thrown together with copyrighted material from the NCAA report. The closing admin actually dispositioned this as "discuss a merge in talk." I propose that this series of comments be that discussion for merging with another article.Thör ^hammer 21:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Do you think it warrants another AFD nomination? I split them instead of nominating them for deletion because, to be honest, I didn't feel like going through the hoopla of the last AFD again. I think don't think either topic deserves it's own section in the Clemson football article, much less it's own article. I think it was created and fueled by someone with a serious axe to grind. WN1971... A Symbol of Freedom 21:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the comments related to Clemson being allowed or permitted to keep their titles is another fabrication. The NCAA does not sanction National Championships in football, and is therefore in no position to permit any school to posess one.Thör ^hammer 22:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then couldn't it be noted that the Coaches/AP pollsters did not chose to revoke the championships? Same for the ACC? The problem is that ViperNerd refuses to allow any information that may divert from his message through these articles that Clemson is a "dirty dirty school". Jober14 (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry WN1971...but what was the point of this discussion again? Was it to discuss splitting a NOTABLE AND SOURCED Wikipedia article, or was it so that you could express every instance of how I decide to manage MY Talk page? If anyone is grinding an axe here, it's you. I'd go so far as to say you are either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Jober14 or Thor. I guess I'll have to file a checkuser to find out if this is the case. Just as in the AfD for this article, there are more users running their mouths about me, and not about the merits of this article. To say that this information is not relevant to an online encyclopedia that contains far more inconsequential minutiae is such an obviously biased statement that it doesn't even warrant further comment. Users like WN1971, Jober, and Thor expose their personal agendas when they can't even keep a simple discussion like this on topic. You do nothing but damage your cause, if indeed you were honest about what that was from the beginning. If the WP community decides that there needs to be not one but TWO articles covering Clemson football probation, who am I to stand in the way? I just thought it was simpler to cover it all in one place. ViperNerd (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, run a checkuser. At the present time, however, it seems as though the consensus is to split the article. WN1971... A Symbol of Freedom 00:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]