Talk:2011 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject College Basketball (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject College Basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of College Basketball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Posting a bracket?[edit]

After Selection Sunday will I have permission to post a picture of the bracket if I reference where it came from?

Possible expansion?[edit]

I don't know if the article should say "will involve 65 teams". There has been a lot of real discussion about the tournament expanding to 96 teams. --Airtuna08 (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the wording should be changed to account for the possible, or probable, expansion of the tournament. Also, the pages of the upcoming tournaments use the exact same wording. Gorsbren (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

RATS![edit]

I was about to update the NCAA tournament time slots for each of the TV networks, but someone beat me to it. Darn! Nice job, though. - Desmond Hobson (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

  • At least I found something else to change. - Desmond Hobson (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

First four bracket[edit]

Using this space to test how to format the NEW First Four round brackets (in lieu of creating an entirely new bracket template). Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)



Game 1
March 15
     
65 Team 1 0
66 Team 2 0
Game 2
March 16
     
67 Team 3 0
68 Team 4 0
I like the first one best.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there anything particularly bad about all four in a row? Grsz 11 23:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I have a widescreen monitor so they all fit. Dunno about the others. However, since they're not truly brackets why not just use {{basketballbox}}? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone else bothered by the seed #s used for the teams in the First Four round? How can two teams have the same seed# in the same region? Shouldn't Clemson and UAB, for example, be 12 and 13 (in whichever order) and all the teams below them in the East adjusted accordingly? It's really a moot point since the NCAA uses the numbers they way they are, and all the media covering the tournament uses the numbers the way they are, that's really the only way to report it on Wikipedia. Just throwing it out there.... LarryJeff (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any seeds as they're technically playing for their respective seeding. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Apparently they're jointly seeded at that level, per the NCAA's bracket. That's also the way the AP is reporting it in stories at the NCAA site: "In a matchup of No. 12 seeds, part of the expanded tournament's new look…"[1]C.Fred (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Standardize[edit]

Could someone fix the host cities in the brackets? In past years, the state has been omitted and it has been in bold. Thanks. --Stlsportsfan2316 (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Conference table[edit]

If someone knows how many teams are in each conference could the set up a conference records table like they had last year.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's already set up: see 2011 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament: qualifying teams#Bids by conference. —C.Fred (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

{{cbb link}}[edit]

Why aren't people using {{cbb link}} in this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

One reason is what is described on Template:Cbb link#When the template should not be used. It is going to reach to many calls if we do what we did last year and add links to the entire Qualifying teams tables, the brackets, all instances in the game summaries prose, all instances of the {{basketballbox}} box score templates, {{Infobox NCAA Basketball Tournament}}, and so forth. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I am guessing that 3/4ths of the teams have articles. Those that don't are mostly going to be one and done teams. I think it would be more helpful if we used the link. I think we should encourage editors to do so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
If you read the "when not to use" section that Zzyzx11 linked to above, it says do not use the template when we know there is an article already written. Use the direct link to that article instead. LarryJeff (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
My point is that I saw a lot of links to team articles instead of team season articles last I checked. Either find the team season or use the cbb link template. E.g. starting from the top look at the 2011_NCAA_Men's_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament#Automatic_bids section. The current code includes the following links [[Bucknell Bison|Bucknell]], [[Boston University Terriers|Boston University]], [[Hampton Pirates|Hampton]], [[UTSA Roadrunners|UTSA]], [[Akron Zips men's basketball|Akron]], [[UC Santa Barbara Gauchos men's basketball|UC Santa Barbara]], [[Alabama State University|Alabama State]], [[North Florida Ospreys|North Florida]], [[Tennessee Tech Golden Eagles|Tennessee Tech]], [[Iona Gaels|Iona]], [[College of Charleston Cougars|College of Charleston]], [[North Texas Mean Green men's basketball|North Texas]], [[Oral Roberts Golden Eagles men's basketball|Oral Roberts]], [[Montana Grizzlies men's basketball|Montana]], [[Lafayette Leopards|Lafayette]], [[UTEP Miners men's basketball|UTEP]], [[Stony Brook Seawolves|Stony Brook]], [[Morgan State Bears men's basketball|Morgan State]], [[McNeese State Cowboys|McNeese State]], [[Kent State Golden Flashes men's basketball|Kent State]], [[Long Beach State 49ers men's basketball|Long Beach State]], [[Grambling State Tigers|Grambling State]] and [[Dayton Flyers men's basketball|Dayton]] Shouldn't each of these be in a cbb link?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there a limit to the number of calls on a page?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Template:cbb link (or more accurately its documentation page) is tagged with {{expensive}}. ccb link uses one of the "expensive" parser functions, #ifexist:, and the developers have set a limit on the number of times a page can use one of those expensive, time consuming, large CPU and memory processing, type of functions. The limit is 500. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Would this article pass 500? Are pages being created for these teams during March Madness? Is there a possible no exception rule?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Again, the 500 limit is placed by the MediaWiki developers. With 68 teams in the tournament, it can definitely approach that limit if we add links to the bracket, the qualifying teams tables, any prose of game summaries, instances of {{basketballbox}} box score template, and any other possible table that links all 68 teams. If you insist on using ccb link, then I only recommend that you use the template for the teams you already just mentioned above. The direct links to individual season articles that already exist on the page should not be converted back, since that would be an unhelpful exercise because the result is the same, and it would unnecessarily add to the 500 limit. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

And no, due to systemic bias, indivdual season articles for those small schools who only appear in the tournament once in while usually never get created. Or if the do, tend to get merged back into the main team article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
You may not be familiar with the template. It is pointless to use it if the season article exists because a bot runs around updating the template for the season articles. The point of using it is to put it in places a season article might pop up. The bot will monitor whether such an article comes into existence and change the link within hours. My point is that in time several of the instances that we are linking to general articles will have season articles and no one will do the updating. We should set a policy to use the cbb link.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
All I'm really doing is posting my thoughts and recommendations. Realistically, I cannot assume that it will approach the 500 limit this year, especially when someone decided to rearrange the qualifying teams table and remove all the links.[2] And nobody has started sections of game summaries yet. If you really care about ccb link, and you trust that we won't approach the 500 limit, "SOFIXIT" instead of continuing what currently appears to be a one user vs. one user debate here, or waiting for others to add it. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Question: Does using the {{cbb link}} actually makes you type longer than the simple piped Wikilinks? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just conducted two experiments:
  1. this 2010 tourney test on the first few sections resulted in one bot change and two link upgrades to basketball teams.
  2. this 2009 tourney test on the first few sections resulted in one bot change and three link upgrades to basketball teams.

From reading the template instructions, and summarizing the previous comments here, what we should be doing is this: If an article is kown to exist for the team's current season, the link should be direct to that article and not use the template. Otherwise, use the template so that, if at any time in the future, such an article is written then the bot will update the appropriate link in the article. Does that sound right to the rest of you? LarryJeff (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes that is my point. Note that in addition even if a team season article does not come about, it is possible that a general basketball team article (e.g., Michigan Wolverines men's basketball) or a general athletic teams article (Michigan Wolverines) will and the template will upgrade its direction of the reader to one of those rather than a general University article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I updated the brackets section of the article. All the links which were not already pointed directly to a 2010-11 team article, I changed to use the cbb link template. LarryJeff (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Posting scores only after the game, not making in-progress updates?[edit]

Wikipedia is not journalism. Given that there are likely to be a hundred scoring plays in a game, is there any reason to update the article with partial scores? It seems to just encourage a lot of edit conflicts, especially when we get to the situation where four games are being played at once. —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Who cares. The games are only two hours long at most and its not worth stressing over. Especially when ips will ignore it and edit anyway.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with C.Fred. This is discouraged in other sports Wikiprojects (some don't even support updating stats on a daily basis). We know that the article will be edited frequently during the tournament, but these in-game edits not only cause edit conflicts, but undermine the stability of the article. I would support reverting such edits, though, as Jojhutton stated, it's not a battle that will always be won. - Masonpatriot (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Nothing wrong with keeping up with the scoring. Ucla90024 (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there is something wrong with "keeping up with the scoring." It clogs things up. If someone is editing an article every 5 seconds, it's very hard to make any other constructive edits. If people want to check scores in real-time, they'll check ESPN. Do not update scores until the game is over. Macarion (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
This. - Masonpatriot (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's be realistic here. This issue has been happening to most sports articles around Wikipedia for the past few years. And it will continue to happen. Irregular users and IPs will want to update the articles and the scores in real time – despite the pleading and reverts by regular users and the sports Wikiprojects. It is not about readers who "want to check scores in real-time", but people who want to update the page in real time. So unless the page is protected (Remember, a page depicting an ongoing current event alone is not a valid reason for page protection), the best you can do it tag the article with {{current sport}}, follow the guidelines on WP:EDC#Prevention, and try not to edit the page too much until the games for the day are over. And don't expect irregular users and IPs to read your pleads, because they usually don't normally look on talk pages first anyway. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Record by conference and one-and-dones[edit]

In prior years' articles, the one-and-done conferences—conferences that sent one team that lost its first game—have been moved off the table and listed separately. Currently, the two one-and-done conferences (Sun Belt and SWAC) are still in the table. (They were broken out as one-and-dones as of Tuesday night, but it got changed sometime on Wednesday.)

Do we want to list every conference in the table, do we want a one-and-done row in the table with a note explaining it below, or do we just need a note to say which conferences went 0–1 and leave them off the table entirely? —C.Fred (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I put the SWAC and Sun Belt losing in the First Four, and someone followed up with the others for the first round. I think if we do that, we should take out C-USA too if both of their teams lose. Grsz 11 04:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The difference with Conference USA is that they had multiple bids. There are usually a number of minor conferences that get only their automatic qualifier bid and lose in the first round. Removing them from the table declutters it. By contrast, leaving C-USA in the table shows that they got multiple bids…even if they couldn't do anything with them. —C.Fred (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Duke-Michigan[edit]

If Duke plays Michigan, should we mention the The Fab Five (film) kerfuffle?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? Grsz 11 23:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I included it in 2010–11_Michigan_Wolverines_men's_basketball_team#Postseason and 2010–11_NCAA_Division_I_men's_basketball_season#Season_headlines and was asking whether it is part of the storyline for the game.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


STOP UPDATING THE SCORES WHILE THE GAME IS STILL BEING PLAYED.[edit]

You're creating edit conflicts every 2 seconds. If people want to see the score of a game currently being played, they'll turn on their TV, or check ESPN.com or some other sports site. They will not check Wikipedia. You are preventing constructive edits from being made. Stop doing this. Macarion (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this is really annoying. 24.41.47.147 (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I tried doing this and I wasn't able to appreciate the game lol. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Overtime[edit]

Are readers just suppose to know that * means overtime, ** for double-overtime, etc.? Prior knowledge should not be required to read and understand what is meant on any Wikipedia page, so that the game went into overtime should be easily understood. Please allow it to say OT rather than a random *. Grsz 11 01:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There should be a ---> * Denotes each overtime at the bottom of the brackets Moonraker0022 (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Or, save the time and link to Overtime (sports) ---> OT. 02:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I prefer having the note added at the bottom (or at the top) of each bracket that uses them. A superscript OT stretches the table, unless it goes into 4OTs or more. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Mult TV networks[edit]

This statement "marking the first time every game in the tournament would be telecast on a national basis." isn't really true. Over the last couple of years as we had digital TV (I want to say since 2003?), all the games were available on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th channels of the local CBS station. Certainly this year is different (not better, IMHO, since I don't have cable), but it isn't the 1st national full telecast. -Jcbarr (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The First Four are not "Play-in" games[edit]

The notes section has: "VCU became the first team to win five games to reach a Final Four, as they played a play-in game to reach the round of 64." [emphasis mine] This is incorrect. The "First Four" is the first round. VCU did not have to play its way into the tournament. The tournament size is 68. "We've all got to get used to it, that these are not play-in games, that this is the first round," said Turner's Levy. Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/stewart_mandel/03/15/dayton.first.four/index.html#ixzz1IVoGM4S2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.98.161.108 (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV?[edit]

This may be resultant in my bias toward a certain team, but there certainly doesn't seem to be a NPOV in this article, especially when referring to accomplishments of lower seeds and placing sole reason on these team's advancements on a "weak field". Furthermore, citing obviously biased articles ("This year's NCAA champ won't be best team", Chicago Tribune) is a bit laughable and vaguely offensive. --thejoewoods (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Home page news?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone please justify why this article is on the home page news!? American college basketball, honestly? I'm a Brit, and I didn't even know this existed. How much of the world-wide audience of Wikipedia, or even the US audience do you think cares about this? Surely it's not *that* slow a news day. Noldorin (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Actually, it is a big deal in the United States... Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Not wanting it to be important is not the same as it not actually being important. The NCAA tournament is one of the most watched and followed sporting events in the U.S, and probably ranks second only to the Super Bowl in terms of interest for sporting events. People outside of the U.S. find this hard to believe, but it doesn't actually need belief to be true. See this document. Last years NCAA Championship Game (Duke vs. Butler) had 24 million viewers in the U.S. via Nielsen's estimate. For an apples-to-apples comparison, the NBA Finals averaged only 18 million viewers for each of its seven games; and the NBA Finals featured the Lakers vs. the Celtics, which is THE PREMIER matchup in the NBA, and it couldn't beat the NCAA Championships. The numbers for the other sports championships are about 14 million for the World Series (Major League Baseball), 106.5 million for the Super Bowl (the NFL dwarfs all other sports in the U.S), 5 million viewers for the Stanley Cup finals (National Hockey League), 13 million for the Daytona 500, and 24 million for the World Cup championship. In the U.S. in 2010, this was as popular as the world cup final, and second only to the Super Bowl in terms of TV viewership, for a sporting championship game. So yes, this is important in the U.S. College Basketball has more interest than professional basketball in many markets. No one watches the NBA until after the college season is over. --Jayron32 04:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Non-notable for 97% of the world. Support: to remove this from the front page news. 124.169.88.166 (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
This is certainly notable in terms of overall audience size and relative attention as compared to many of the items in the news. There will always be news items that are meaningless to some large group of people. That doesn't mean they are meaningless in general, or do not have large regional audiences sufficient to make them notable. Let's not apply the faulty lens of personal preference to this. It's a very large sporting event in a leading country. Whether or not we personally care for it, or follow it, is irrelevant. It is news.204.65.34.86 (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The Superbowl, NBA finals or "World Series" baseball finals are American notable sporting events. These are recognised outside of the USA. College basketball is non-notable for the world whether or not you personally care for it. It may be news but the frontpage is not appropriate. Support: to remove from frontpage. 124.169.88.166 (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Level of recognition outside of the United States is not a prerequisite for appearance on the main page. --Jayron32 16:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • This is a late April Fools joke right!? YES the subject of who wins the NCAA Men's DI Basketball championship is notable. I just looked at the section and I've never heard of and don't care about any of the other items in the news section, and most probably didn't get the media coverage/audience of the basketball championship but that doesn't mean those items are not notable either just because I've never heard of them. Sports are going to be more popular in some regions and countries than others but that doesn’t make them non-notable. China doesn’t care about Australian rules football, America doesn’t care about soccer, Canada doesn’t care about beach volleyball... And the list goes on and on. Bhockey10 (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
This definitely is not the place to have this discussion, so everybody can drop it. Grsz 11 17:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It's probably 50-50 either here or on the main page's talk page and it's good to discuss things. But this is a pointless argument/discussion to oppose notable events on the main page's 'in the news' section. Note: since more than one person (besides myself) want to end the discussion I'm formally closing it. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Can some Americans really be this arrogant? The world is a lot bigger than the U.S.A. It's a highly regional occurrence, of very little interest to 99% of the world, as others pointed out. The counter-examples are poor, as they have widespread cross-boundary interest. Glad it's off the front news page now anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoldorinElf (talkcontribs) 21:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2011 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)