Source: http://bceagles.collegesports.com/genrel/bc-acc-profiles.html Thought about inclulding ADs and fb/bb head coaches as they have listed on this site, but decided on just sticking to numerical statistics, for fear of overcrowding. --24.63.125.78 07:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The religious affiliation or designation as "non-sectarian" is not so clear cut. For example, Duke University describes its ties with Methodism as "formal, on-going, and symbolic" [1] while Wake Forest maintains "a dedication to the values rooted in its Baptist heritage" [2]. Both schools can be considered "non-sectarian" in that they are no longer under the direct auspices of their founding religious organizations. Likewise, Boston College maintains its Jesuit identity in spite of the fact that it severed its formal ties with the Jesuit Order (and thereby the Catholic Church) in the 1960s when it was independently incorporated under a lay board of trustees. Unlike the Catholic University of America, which is under the direct auspices of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, or the University of Notre Dame, which is governed by "fellows" who must be priests of the Congregation of Holy Cross, The Trustees of Boston College (BC's governing body) operate independent of any religious jurisdiction. This arrangement is probably similar to that at Duke or Wake Forest, except that the BC trustees have voluntarily chosen to elect members of the founding religious organization to the presidency (though they are not required to do so). In fact, similar arrangements exist at other Jesuit colleges and universities, where both women and non-clerics have been elected to presidency (most recently at Georgetown). All of this is to say that I think the nature of a school's religious affiliation is beyond the scope of this article, and that "public" or "private" suffice in the context of the members table. --24.63.125.78 10:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely understand what you're saying. I think there is a perception difference when it comes to BC, though, as they are definatley popularly viewed as a Catholic institution. Also, as a failsafe, I usually check the USNews and World Report profile of each school (most of the information is provided by the institution itself) and BC describes itself as Cathloic while Duke and Wake Forest describe itself as having no religious affiliation.

Also, I don't think it's completely outside the scope to put something small like that in an informational chart, as it tends to show what type of institutions each conference represents. If people want to find out more about how that affiliation affects and guides the instituion they can go to that school's wikipage or actual hopepage to examine further.

Also, is it necessary to post this on EVERY conference page... kind of overkill in my book. -- Masonpatriot

Adding each schools' national championships from the table comes out to 127. This is inconsistent with the total of 91 listed in the ACC infobox (same total listed at http://bceagles.collegesports.com/genrel/bc-acc-profiles.html which break the number down to 47 from women's teams and 44 from men's teams) which is in turn inconsistent with the number of men's and women's titles listed in the ACC infobox. Can anyone explain these discrepencies? --24.63.125.78 07:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Notre Dame-BC footnote blongs in one of the articles about the rivalry itself? (ie the Holy War (college football), Ireland Trophy, or Frank Leahy Memorial Bowl) Once we start getting into why Notre Dame is playing Rutgers, I think we've taken the article a bit too much off course. AriGold 19:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the listing of a rivalry bewteen BC and Syracuse. I have never heard of this as anything more than a conference matchup. I looked into it and found nothing that supports more than just a casual conference rivalry. See: http://www.1122productions.com/rivalries/ ; http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22college+football+rivalries%22 AriGold 19:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase:

" It is widely considered a good, but not great conference. Most would argue that leagues such as the Big East, Big 10, SEC, and even Conference USA are much better. For example, the University of Miami struggled in the Big East, but found life much easier and was very competitive in the ACC."

has been added and removed from the ACC article several times. I think it should be removed because it is an opinion, not neutral NPOV. In fact I disagree with the opinion - the ACC has 3 teams in the top 10 currently, more than the other conferences mentioned. The UM evidence is also not NPOV. I think that we should vote to keep this section out of the article.

• Support Tkessler 22:42, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support No reasonable individual would agree that "most" view all four conferences listed as better; arguments can be made either way, but the assertion is simply not NPOV. The Miami statement is fact, but whether it supports the assertion that the BE is better is a matter of opinion; perhaps Miami (and Virginia Tech) improved quite a bit for their inaugural seasons. VT hawkeye 17:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed this from the article: "The Atlantic Coast Conference is, academically, the most highly ranked scholarship-granting American collegiate athletic conference. Only the non-scholarship Ivy League holds a higher overall academic ranking." I don't necessarily doubt the claim, but before it can be restored to the article, it must be clarified. What exactly is meant by overall academic ranking? What "overall academic ranking" are we talking about? Even after that matter is clarified, sources must be added to prove that this is indeed the case. Dagga 20:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]