Talk:2007 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Selection Sunday[edit]

Please put the date that Selection Sunday occurs. Hangfromthefloor 16:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Teams[edit]

Feel free to add teams as need Natural number is e 21:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Also wait till the championship game is over before you add a team. There will be some exception to this, such as "Team A" has a large lead over "Team B" in the final minutes of game play. Natural number is e 00:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect[edit]

FYI, I've requested semiprotection in advance of the release of the bracket to ward off any anonymous vandalism that will likely occur in the coming hours. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 21:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good move! There was one allready... these guys should redshirt indefinitely!!--Nitsansh 22:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
There were a few after the field announced and edits including one slur and obscene refernce to the "play-in" game. (talk) NoseNuggets 9:15 PM US EDT, Mar 12 2007.

(reduce indent) IMHO, Semi-protection wouldn't be necessary until when the tournament actually begins (i.e. March 14th). IP addresses haven't been vandalizing the page . . . yet. Real96 01:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my ignorance...[edit]

What time the brackets will be announced?--Nitsansh 22:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • In the US, ESPN will be announcing them throughout the 6:00pm (EST) hour. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 22:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

How long does it take to announce them all? So far I see only #1 seeds--Nitsansh 22:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It'll take them the entire hour. Correction to the above - CBS is announcing them as they come in, since they have rights to the NCAA tourney, not ESPN. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 22:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I see... that's why I saw the top seeds here before they were announced on ESPN. I don't recieve CBS here.--Nitsansh 22:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are the brackets partially filled in? The #1 thru #4 seeds have apparently advanced to the Sweet Sixteen already?--Brainscar 13:24, 13 March 2007 (EST)

That was either vandalism or someone testing the bracket template. I'm not sure. They've been removed. Leebo T/C 17:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Final Four[edit]

It will be Midwest vs. West and East vs. South this year. NoseNuggets 7:25 PM US EDT Mar 11 2007.

Can you put Ohio State in the South slot. Since they have qualified for the Final Four. Or if you want to wait for the whole picture to be set then that is fine. Thanks.

Other notes[edit]

ESPN always have carried the play-in game since 2002. When CBS was owned by Viacom, Spike TV carried the play-in game in 2001. Athletic teams of the University of Southern California prefers to be called as "Southern California" not USC as a difference to the University of South Carolina, which has the same initials. Also, some of the teams are in a smaller font (George Washington, Central Connecticut State and Southern California) to fit into the bracket allignment. NoseNuggets 9:05 PM US EDT Mar 11 2007.

Notable teams left out[edit]

This section should be expanded to include why these teams are of interest. I imagine this section is really teams generally considered snubbed by the Committee. So, we should talk why their absense from the NCAA tourney is worth noting. Why Missouri State but not Vermont (in the NIT) or Oklahoma (not in NCAA or NIT)? This should give the list more credibility too. Let's turn the list into prose.

This section is a good place to (briefly) mention the NIT. No more than a couple of sentences mentioning that these teams will be playing in the NIT, among other teams, and what the NIT is.

Articles about snubbed teams:

-- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 14:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a section on snubbed "bubble teams", like Syracuse and Drexel, would open too many doors to violating neutral point of view and possibly original research. And the other thing is, the NIT isn't relevant. This isn't an article about 2007 postseason college basketball, it's just about the NCAA championship. Leebo T/C 18:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see, this list is already in the article. There isn't a standard format for "snubbed teams" section in these articles, and I think it shouldn't be discussed. Unless there is widespread controversy outside of the teams themselves whining (afterall, every year there are more good teams than at-large bids) then it's not really notable. Every season sees inexplicable bubble bursts. Leebo T/C 18:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, I hinted it. As you said, there needs to be some level of controversy to mention any team on this article. That's what I'm looking for, some justification for the teams to be listed here. The definition of "notable" is subjective - for example, should Oklahoma State be on that list? If we let the experts in college basketball speak for themselves who belongs in that section, I think we could avoid NPOV. Teams that did sneak in (or barely missed out) is part of this the 2007 tournament's history now and I think are worth a mention. Assuming we do mention any snubbed teams, mentioning they are participating in the NIT might make sense (otherwise mentioning NIT really wouldn't make sense in this article). This list, in its current form, I would vote to remove. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 20:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone just added the Iowa Hawkeyes (17-14) to the list. Were they even a serious bubble team (let alone one of the "notable" snubs)? This is the kind of unencyclopedic POV material this section invites. Perhaps a very brief section about the difficulty of making the last few at-large bids (with info from the selection committee, like the high number of 20-win teams) would be appropriate. But I think we have to nix this list soon. Leebo T/C 15:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I've just removed it (want to put money on how long before someone adds it again?). "Difficulty of making the last few at-large bids" is a good way of putting it, I like it. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 15:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia != TV Guide[edit]

The channels and times really should not be in Wikipedia since Wikipedia is not a TV guide. If you want to know channels and times, check out ESPN, CBS Sportsline, Yahoo! Sports, or a multitude of other sources. Anyone up for removing this junk? -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 23:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the schools by state section really necessary?[edit]

Natural number is e 16:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

YES. I find it quite useful and topical, and think every year's NCAA Tournament article should have one just like it! Now if I just had the time to do the legwork... :( CollegeSportsGuy 02:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
NO. A list of schools by conference is notable, as there is usually controversy about conferences being under- or over-represented. But a correlation of teams by state seems pretty arbitrary. With the list of qualifying teams, teams by state, game schedule, and brackets, teams are listed on this page four times! I think it would be fine to only list the brackets (and get rid of qualifying teams, teams by state, and game schedule). Hoof Hearted 14:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I agree. The brackets at the bottom should be enough, but there isn't enough room to list all of the team's information. We should keep the Qualifying Teams > Listed by Grouping & Seeding section because it includes record and conference. Other than that, I see only redundancy in listing by state, etc. Hangfromthefloor 21:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
After reviewing the tables a little closer, I see your point about including the record, conference, and berth type in the Qualifying Teams section. But I'd still like to see the teams by state and game schedule go. Hoof Hearted 13:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

YES I'm all for a state listing. I think it shows interesting trends. I think it would take up less space, though, if it just listed the states with one or two teams, rather than listing the teams. Does that make sense? Wrad 16:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with listing one or two teams for each state is - what team gets cited as the example? Someone will always be adding their team if it isn't included on the list. The whole list strikes me as original research. Are there sports commentaries that note the state trends? Hoof Hearted 17:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I was clear enough. If a state had only one or two teams in the tournament, you would not list the teams, only the states. This would save space. Only states with three or more teams would have a list of teams in the table. Wrad 16:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen articles on ESPN.com, CBSsportsline, and other reputable sites breakdown the NCAA qualifiers in a given year by state. So it is a trend that is followed. - CollegeSportsGuy 09:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Then I concede. Realize that I'm looking at this article from more of an encyclopedic standpoint since I'm only a casual sports fan. Hoof Hearted 15:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
NO, they don't choose schools via states, they choose it via conferences. It's like having a list at the NFL playoffs listed via state (imagine, Washington - Seahawks, Indiana - Colts). And the teams do not strictly represent their states, they represent their schools and conferences. --Howard the Duck 16:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I shortened the table quite a bit. Discuss. Wrad 05:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

brackets[edit]

Why did the second round games get taken off? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BigSciZot (talkcontribs) 19:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

You were looking at someones vandalism (or acciental removal). They have now been restored. Hoof Hearted 20:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I just had a little note to Bobat about the listing of Southern California in the brackets. If he should list the full name rather than the official NCAA bracket name, I suggest he would be reported for vandalism. NoseNuggets 3:50 PM US EDT Mar 17 2007
I will repeat this ONE LAST TIME. The brackets are the same as the OFFICIAL NCAA BRACKETS, INITALS AND ALL! "Eastern Kentucky" is listed as "Eastern Ky", "Southern Cal" is how the NCAA recognizes "Southern California", "C. Conn St." is how they list "Central Connecticut State", and the University of Pennsylvania does officially recognize all their athletic teams under the name of "Penn." Got it? Good. NoseNuggets 12:56 PM US EDT Apr 1 2007 (And no, this is NOT an April Fools Day joke, thank you.!)

Team links and "About 30 minutes..."[edit]

Should links be: College name, College mascot or College name, College mascot, basketball? For example: Florida Gators or Florida Gators basketball? It's inconsistent under Qualifying Teams > Listed by Grouping & Seeding. Hangfromthefloor 21:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked them all, but I believe the only reason a link doesn't go to "____ basketball" is because the article doesn't exist. Note the red link in your example. Thanks User:Josephabradshaw for the Gators article. If it does exist, I believe that is the preferred link. Hoof Hearted 13:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That is, unless somebody wants to start a Florida Gators basketball page with their history. Besides, some links have "College Name|College" links because there are no athletic pages that are seperate from the schools. NoseNuggets 6:41 PM US EDT Mar 18 2007.

Also, do we need the About 30 minutes after the completion of ___ and so on? It makes the page quite cluttered, and I think it's useless. Hangfromthefloor 22:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - the page is very cluttered. My feeling is the entire section should be cut. Hoof Hearted 13:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. When the NCAA makes out the schedule, the second game is listed as "about 30 minutes following the completion of (first game)." That's their position, and if you wanna take it up with them, be my guest. NoseNuggets 3:38 PM US EDT Mar 16 2007
Disagree. Putting game times after they are announced is useful to the reader, and since the second game is only listed as "30 minutes after conclusion of first", it should stay that way. However, after the game is over, that part gets deleted anyway and is replaced by the score. --Mtjaws 21:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The discussion was on how the time of the second game is listed, Mtjaws. I have a rule of thumb on this. When the game starts, the start time is removed, and the game is considered "in progress". After the first game, the score is posted and the "about 30 minutes" statement is removed from Game Two. This only applies to the first three rounds and the National semi-finals. There's nothing wrong with that IMHO. NoseNuggets 6:36 PM US EDT Mar 18 2007.

Seed numbers[edit]

Perhaps we should consider putting the seed numbers in a small number. I'm not a fan of having such large numbers in parentheses.

Consider:

4 Maryland vs. 13 Davidson

<sub>4</sub> Maryland vs. <sub>13</sub> Davidson</nowiki>

or,

4 Maryland vs. 13 Davidson

<small>4</small> Maryland vs. <small>13</small> Davidson

Thoughts? If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a stylistic element that should remain constant in all articles that have seeds next to team or player names. I have no strong feeling on the issue. If it is changed, it should be the same everywhere, at least in all the NCAA tournament articles. Leebo T/C 13:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I say leave them large, becuase that's how it's rendered in the vast majority of sources. I've seen several places bold the seeds, so maybe that would help distinguish the seed from the score?
(4) Maryland vs. (13) Davidson
Finally, I'll make another dig; the only place this appears is in the dreaded Scores and schedule section. I realize I'm bucking wikipedia tradition, but how about a summary of the entire First Round, Second Round, etc. rather than a game by game break down? Perhaps a Round Summary could focus on the more notable games (blow outs and Cinderella stories) instead of recapping every game in a nested list. Hoof Hearted 14:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
If it ain't broke, as the expression goes, then you don't fix it. NoseNuggets 8:32 PM US EDT Mar 17 2006
I guess I'm proposing that it is broke, or at least could be improved. And judging by the comments of several other editors on this page, I'm not alone. The game-by-game summaries are too detailed and unencyclopedic IMO. Two years from now are readers going to care that "Davidson came alive in the second half..." in its game against Maryland? Especially when both teams are out of the tournament in the second round. Then you run into POV problems in the summaries as stated below. Just offering some suggestions for improving the article. Hoof Hearted 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

POV in "Scores and Schedule" section[edit]

I'm a bit concerned about having commentary added to the Scores and Schedule section of this article. Already some of the comments are bordering on POV and as the tournament goes along they're only more likely to get that way. Simply noting the top scorer and rebounder for each team should be sufficient, anything else is too inviting. z4ns4tsu\talk 19:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this whole section could be replaced with a more prominent link to the relevant WikiNews articles (e.g. [1]). Summaries of every game are not appropriate on this page. A paragraph about the finals, final four, and maybe exceptional earlier round games (like the Duke/Kentucky regional final in the 1992 tourney) would be entirely sufficient. --dantheox 03:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Southern Cal vs. Southern California[edit]

After changing "Southern Cal" to "Southern California" in the brackets, I was actually threatened on my talk page. To make clear why I make the suggestion, I would like to note that: Despite its use in sports-related articles and in the NCAA's mistaken short hand, the official position of USC discourages use of "Southern Cal" in any context, as clearly stated in all media guides: "Note to the media: In editorial references to athletic teams of the University of Southern California, the following are preferred: USC, Southern California, So. California, Troy and Trojans for men’s or women’s teams, and Women of Troy for women’s teams. PLEASE do not use Southern Cal (it’s like calling San Francisco “Frisco” or North Carolina “North Car.”). The usage of "Southern Cal" on licensed apparel and merchandise is limited in scope and necessary to protect federal trademark rights." It’s Not ‘Southern Cal’, 2005 USC Football Media Guide, USC Athletic Department, pg. 3. For that reason, I request the term "Southern Cal" be replaced by "Southern California" or other mutually acceptable form. I am not sure why this is causing such offense. --Bobak 18:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Then USC needs to take it up with the NCAA. The abbreviations in the bracket are consistent with those used by the NCAA at an official NCAA website for the tournament. I don't know what discussion has gone on in the Wikiproject, but I do know that 1) the article identifies an authoritative source published by the NCAA for the abbreviations used in the bracket and 2) uses them consistently. Based on that, it stands to reason that "Southern Cal" should be used in the bracket section of the article; however, in the prose sections of the article, "Southern California" would be correct usage. —C.Fred (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, the usage of "USC" is frowned upon by the media as if they were to be confused by the University of South Carolina, as they share the same initals, hence "Southern California" is preferred by the media. And if Bobak had seen the note that is unseen <(!---like this, except for the parenthesis---)> which clearly states "If you think it should be different, then take it up with the NCAA", this would be avoided. Even Billy Packer made a note about the Southern California-South Carolina initals confusion during the Kansas-Kentucky Game Sunday (3/18). NoseNuggets 3:34 PM US EDT Mar 18 2007 (Edited 8:49 AM US EDT Mar 19 2007)
And now I can add IlliniPride to those being told NOT to use the full name of "Southern California" in the brackets. NoseNuggets 11:00 AM US EDT Mar 21 2007
The logic here relies on enforcing a mistake, which is clear from the USC/Southern California media guide and using bad logic to call it authoritative. If the NCAA makes a type, it does not make it "official". Saying "USC" is confusing is also disingenuous because there are other options offered, including "Southern California" and "So. California". Again, those arguments have been laid naked and hold no water. --Bobak 18:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, relevant to this discussion, I've been cleaning up USC/Southern California naming all over Wikipedia and I just came over NoseNuggets comments on this talk page archive. Apparently NoseNuggets has mistaken incorrect information about USC's naming conventions for over a year. While I assume good faith, please --let's not continue this. --Bobak 19:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
NoseNuggets, if you insist on using an abbreviation for the University of Southern California that has been proven to be incorrect so that you match the source exactly, conventions of style dictate that you follow it with (sic) to denote that you are aware of the error on the part of the original source and have chosen not to correct it. On the other hand, it would probably be easier to just remove the note about names and abbreviations and put a simple citation in its place. Personally, I think your whole argument is ridiculous and stands on, at best, shaky logic.

The fact that you threatened to report Bobak for vandalism when his edits are clearly not also demonstrates an attitude that is not conducive to building a good wiki. If an authoritative source can be provided that proves that "Southern Cal" is not an approved abbreviation for this university (and one has), then the use of that abbreviation should be discontinued, no matter what other sources say. z4ns4tsu\talk 21:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me add something here. What if, in the College World Series, Southern California and South Carolina somehow make the final round. Wouldn't the use of "USC" be really redundant? That's why I seperate Southern California and South Carolina rather than use the initials. NoseNuggets 8:01 PM US EDT Mar 22 2007
I'd say we use "Southern California", not all visitors of this page are Americans and wouldn't now what or where "Cal" is. --Howard the Duck 11:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Howard, we already use "Southern California" in all written recaps, but the NCAA uses "Southern Cal" in the brackets, and that's how we think is should stay. NoseNuggets 11:16 AM Mar 23 2007.
Why not use "Southern Calif."? It is said that USC frowns on the use of "Southern Cal" or "Socal", and non-Americans (it is broadcast internationally) see the CBS coverage where they use "USC" (they use "UNC" on in-game bugs but "North Carolina" before and after a commercial break, while they consistently use "USC", perhaps "Southern California" is loooooong.) --Howard the Duck 16:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to abbreviate at all. Abbreviations are for when a name is too long to fit in the space given. The brackets on my browser show plenty of space to list the entire names of all the abbreviated schools. The extra space right now is not being utilized at all. -PK9 18:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The last NCAA Men's basketball appearances by Southern California in 2001 and 2002 show the bracket with "Southern California" spelled out. The NCAA PDF brackets are prepared in haste by those in charge of making the print look good. They have a limited number of characters and are using a specific font selected beforehand. The mandate as noted by Bobak at the beginning of this thread appears on every game day media release. Apparently Jim Nantz and Billy Packer do not read their media releases, as they both said "Southern Cal" during their game with "North Carolina". My guess is that "So. Cal." and "Southern Cal." appear in the The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, which also must require UCLA to be spelled U.C.L.A. Group29 02:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, no placing of announce teams in regions and subregions![edit]

It's already been done in the "Television and Radio" section of the article. NoseNuggets 10:58 AM US EDT Mar 21 2007

Organization[edit]

There are some sections that in my opinion need to be in there own section. I was thinking of doing this to locations of the games, and what about moving the Scores and schedule to a new page or cutting down on the game summaries. Natural number is e 18:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly second cutting down on the game summaries. These really belong on Wikinews, not Wikipedia. This page should have at most four or five game summaries. --dantheox 23:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thirded. Hoof Hearted 20:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Why semiprotected?[edit]

I would like an explanation of why the page is semiprotected. Any specific incidents ? - Desmond Hobson 18:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

On Thursday night, somebody kept putting Tennessee through the finals with a bunch of fake scores. Foxman9815 21:41, 23 March 2007
Thanks Foxman! I just hope it wasn't Bruce Pearl! If he painted his bare chest to show support for the women's team, he's capable of anything.LOL - Desmond Hobson 21:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Any idea as to why there first names show up next to team names in the bracket at the bottom of the page? They certainly should not be there.

Chalk[edit]

It might be worthwhile to note that the higher seeds have enjoyed unprecedented success in this year's tournament, winning 48/56 games thus far, and the regional finals is comprised with the highest group of seedings ever (4 #1s, #3 #2s, and 1 #3) -PK9 18:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Final Thoughts[edit]

Is there any way we can improve for 2008's tourney? Feel free to post them here. And thanks to everyone for helping out on this year's articles. NoseNuggets 1:53 AM US EDT Apr 3 2007.

  • Pictures. Surely some wikiuser has pictures from the tournament, maybe three or four, but don't overdo it.
  • Semi-Protect the page from the start. We already know that it will be vandalized, and getting a username isn't too hard.

An article with this many editors and this much attention has a lot of potential to become a featured article. Also, as Wikiproject College Basketball develops, mechanics and technicalities of the genre will be gradually hammered out, giving us a formula to work by. I look forward to it. Wrad 01:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Have an official policy on where game writeups should go and what they should look like. There's clearly a great deal of interest in writing them, but they clutter the article, making it enormous. Wikinews is a fabulous place to put longer game writeups. This page could then link to those writeups, and include shorter summaries of the semis and finals. Also, it should be agreed upon before the tournament which statistics are important enough to include. Bids by conference is reasonable. Results by conference might be. Bids by state is not. I like the idea of bringing this article up to the level of a featured article candidate. By cleaning it up, we can set an example for what the 2008 page should look like. --dantheox 04:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I shortened the state section, although I'm sure the debate on that will continue, as it should. I have an idea, also, to shorten the game summaries. What if we had a separate article for the first two rounds of game summaries? Then, a paragraph or two summarizing upsets and notable games in those rounds, with a link to the larger article for more information. This would keep the article concise while also providing more information to those interested. This may work well in some combination with dan's idea involving wikinews. Wrad 05:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Other things that would have to change would be the trivia-like "Notes" section. While this may work as a list to add to as the events occur, it is not good if we want to maintain an encyclopedic form for reference in the future. They should be worked into the prose somehow or removed. Wrad 06:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I just stumbled on the fact that all tournament articles from 2004 and earlier contain no game summaries other than the semi-finals and finals (and no separate articles for the earlier rounds). These articles seem much more concise and relevant. Is it our policy to keep the game summaries for 2 or 3 years, or can we prevent them from being written in the first place? Hoof Hearted 20:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
There are no summaries because those pages were generated by a computer program I wrote. It only had bracket/conference/seeds information, so unless another contributor added game summaries, there shouldn't be any. --dantheox 22:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that most would agree that the game summaries are making the article too long. I think that we should experiment with moving or removing them. I don't really care which or how. I, personally, would prefer to have them moved rather than removed entirely, for the sake of not using information, but ultimately, the article is cluttered with them in it. Wrad 02:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved the opening rounds to a subpage and summed them up in a few paragraphs. The new subpage can be considered a holding pen for the info while we decide whether or not to delete it. Feel free to comment. Wrad 02:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I have some more ideas for improvement: How about putting the bracket before the game summaries. This would, I think, give the article a more cohesive feel, going from general information to specific. Also, how about a subarticle for the "Qualifying teams" section? This way, we could keep the four top tables and move the more specific info (state, conference, left out) into the sub article. Wrad 20:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

We could also eliminate the state and left out sections. Is anyone going to care about this information two months from now? Ten years from now? --dantheox 22:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I could stick it in a sub article to hold until a decision is made . . . Wrad 23:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Charts of revision history[edit]

For everyone's entertainment: I created charts of the edits to this article by date and wrote a blog post about it. Edit count tracks events pretty well. Selection Sunday was the biggest day, followed by the first weekend. Edits tapered off in the later rounds, but still remained at or above what they were in 2006. --dantheox 04:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing[edit]

I'm adding this as an expansion to the Final thoughts section.

I don't see why these articles can't cite their sources better as events happen. Other current event articles, such as Virginia Tech Massacre and Spider Man 3, are loaded with sources. I'm going to stick a tag on this one and start trying to find some sources, but this is something that could be better next year. Wrad 20:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Bracket abbreviations[edit]

I was about to do a wholesale revert of them, but I noticed the discussion here, so I'll air my grievances here - the need to adhere to the NCAA's "official" listing for teams in brackets is downright absurd. In the NCAA's own Final Four records book, you'll see in the brackets section that in prior tournament appearances:

  • Southern California was listed as "Southern California" (2001)
  • George Washington was listed as "George Washington" (2006)
  • Central Connecticut State was listed as "Central Conn. St." (2000)

...and that's just in the first three I looked up. Get the point? These aren't "official bracket abbreviations", as has been claimed earlier. It's just a PDF bracket thrown together with abbreviations that fit in the lines provided. Nothing more, nothing less. And last time I checked, the NCAA didn't keep their official files stored on CBS Sportsline's servers (view the location of the image). It's not even their own official bracket.

The standard for all collegiate athletic references on Wikipedia has been to use the common name of the teams in question. For this reason, I'm removing this stuff that sources the CBS Sportsline printable bracket as the bible, including a revert of Southern Cal. to "USC" (as found here), and instead using the common name as well as will fit in the bracket. If anyone can find something that directly states that the NCAA uses a specific name to refer to a team in that way instead of simply inferring it from other sources, I see no reason why it should be any other way. --fuzzy510 05:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, let's use the most popular name. --Howard the Duck 16:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)