Talk:NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject College Basketball (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Changes to Broadcast Announcers[edit]

I made a couple of changes to the list of broadcasters for the NCAA Tournament. I deleted Greg Anthony since we was fired as the lead game analyst for CBS and added Grant Hill and Chris Webber. They both worked for Turner and CBS as game analysts during the 2015 NCAA Tournament. Hope this helps!AzCats00 (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Chart in trivia section[edit]

That graph is impenetrable. Maybe somebody who understands what on earth it shows should re-make it with data labels that make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suncrush (talkcontribs) 14:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Future host cities[edit]

I added a list of the future host cities and the hosting venue. Is that appropriate for this article? Nimper (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

  • This is a duplicate. Already listed under Courts and Venues with dates shown. (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Championship Games[edit]

Wouldn't it be better to put the championship games in chronological order (1939 to 2004) rather than reverse chronological order, which we now have shown?

I suppose it may be splitting hairs, but I see the following advantages: (1) because we link the first occurrence of each school name, this would highlight the first time that a school makes the championship game, not the most recent; (2) by asking people to scroll down to the current season, it emphasizes how many championship games have come and gone; (3) events do, after all, happen in chronological order.

(If special weight is to be given to the current year, it could be placed in the text before the list.)HI

What do you think? Rjyanco 12:20, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How about providing in one article tables of all Final four participants year by year with all game results including the discontinued 3rd place game which is omitted from the current Wikipedia?

Something like this for 1978, the last year there was a 3rd place game:

1 2 3 4 Kentucky Duke Arkansas Notre Dame

1st Round: Kentucky 64 Arkansas 56 1st round: Duke 90 Notre Dame 86

Championship: Kentucky 94 Duke 88 3rd Place: Arkansas def. Notre Dame (I can't find the score)

Also, link to complete box scores would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


How are the venues selected? KyuuA4 01:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Some changes[edit]

I've tweaked the page, most notably by putting the championship results into table form. I've also done some basic cleaning. Enjoy, and go Tar Heels... Semolina Pilchard 00:22, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I'm thinking we should merge Final Four, March Madness, and NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship. Amendment: also proposing the merger from Elite Eight and Bracketology. -- Jjjsixsix

This comment is cross-posted onto all associated talk pages.

JnB987 20:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to be undecided on this one. It's a tough call, because in some ways, they deserve their own articles. In others, they're the exact same thing. Judging by the article though, March Madness might deserve to stay, while Final Four should be merged. TrafficBenBoy 02:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • They should all be merged. The distinctions between what is meant by "march madness" and "final four" can be adequately described in one article. The redirect from Final Four might point to a section on that topic in this article. --Dystopos 20:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong disagree. March Madness has a history quite distinct from (and more interesting than) Final Four. Eventually this article needs to be expanded to cover the history of the phrase and the trademark battles, which after ten years are still under litigation. BlongerBros 14:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I finally "discovered" the Elite Eight page and updated it. Elite Eight also has (or had) multiple trademark claims and likewise has a separate history from Final Four. Along with Sweet Sixteen, I think they all deserve to be dealt with separately. I know some about the history of these marks and would be glad to elaborate. BlongerBros 02:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes: Final Four, Elite Eight, Bracketology (here, or March Madness if it stays); Maybe: March Madness. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 07:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't really sense a consensus here regarding Bracketology, so I reverted it back to the original article. While I agree that March Madness and the Final Four (as it relates to college basketball) are essentially the same concept, I argue that bracketology is a seperate concept, the speculation regarding seedings and entries and such. I think it's also a seperate field of college basketball expertise. If everyone else disagrees, so be it, but I don't get the sense that the bracketology redirect was really discussed. Thanx! --Maxamegalon2000 21:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad there's a separate article. I'm not a basketball fan and I never heard of bracketology, but when I saw there was a wikipedia article on it, I knew I'd get good info quickly. None of the other websites using the term bothered to explain it because they figured only basketball fans who knew it already would be viewing the site.

"Nowhere is the growth of the bracket's prestige more evident than with the proliferation of bracketology, a concept defined in Wikipedia, not Webster's." - The New York Times I don't think we can merge this into anything now! ;-) -- SCZenz 05:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I also came here looking for general information on tournament formats. If "bracketology" has general application outside of NCAA, then it should be described in more general terms, then linked to a discussion of NCAA tournament play (as well as anywhere else it makes sense.) -- Just my two cents. Bspisak 22:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What about Most Outstanding Player? It's just a list right now, and could easily be added on as another column in the table of past champions. fuzzy510 09:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Source for the records?[edit]

What exactly is the source for the records given here? At least one of them is flat-out wrong: the record for FG% for at least 10 FGM belongs not to Bill Walton for his 95.5% performance but to Christian Laettner, who was 10-for-10 vs. Kentucky in the 1992 Elite Eight (source); the game is best remembered not for Laettner's perfection but his score of the winning points as time expired on a miraculous Grant Hill pass from the opposite baseline. So is someone just getting these stats from an internal repository in his mind, or is there an actual website involved in the consultation? I'm just going to remove that statistic for now, since I honestly think that other people have gone 10-for-10 or better besides Laettner. StarryEyes 13:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Historical Brackets[edit]

I've done some preliminary work towards creating an article for each and every NCAA tournament, 1939-2004. A sample page for the 1991 tournament is at User:Dantheox/NCAA. There's nothing special about 1991 -- creation of these pages is completely automated, so once a standard format is settled on, creating all 66 (?) tournament pages won't take very long. That being said, I'd love to get some feedback on the page. Suggestions have included doing a better job of linking to universities (not states or titles, like "Duke") and a better handling of the third-place games that were played until 1981. --Dantheox 09:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I put in links for all previous tournaments. Most are red now, but the blue ones from before 2004 offer a sample of what the pages I plan on adding look like. Barring any objections, I'd like to upload the remaining tourneys later this evening. --Dantheox 23:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Seeding[edit]

On the site, it has this seeding:

1v16, 8v9

2v15, 7v10

3v14, 6v11

4v13, 5v12

Looking a bracket, that's not nessisarily the case. It should be:

1v16, 8v9

4v13, 5v12

3v14, 6v11

2v15, 7v10

Here's the link:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

What page, paragraph, etc are you refering too? The only place where I can find a list in that order is the paragraph where it explains the "pod system" for the first two rounds (which seems appropriate there). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's what the article says:

"In the pod system, each of the eight first- and second-round sites has two "pods", where a pod is a group of four teams who play each other. A host site's pods may be from different regions, and thus the winners of each pod would advance into separate regional tournaments. The possible pods by seeding are:

1v16, 8v9 2v15, 7v10 3v14, 6v11 4v13, 5v12"

That's incorrect. the bottom should be underneath the top, and the middle 2 should be on the bottom. Haven't you seen the link? This site's incorrect, and I want it to be correct.

  • Perhaps you are not understanding the paragraph and context in question, so I have changed it a bit to be a bit more clear. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Tournament format[edit]

This is not an error report, per se, just a suggestion to keep the content details as consistent as possible (yes, I need to get a life).

This page lists --

"In the pod system, each regional bracket is divided into four-team "pods". The possible pods by seeding are:

Pod #1: 1v16, 8v9 Pod #2: 2v15, 7v10 Pod #3: 3v14, 6v11 Pod #4: 4v13, 5v12 "

All the NCAA game box scores I've ever seen list the higher seed (favorite) as the home team, on the bottom of the box score. Couple this with the standard of listing any generic contest as "Team A vs. Team B" where A is the away team, and B the home team .... then I believe the technically correct way of listing the pod system explanation would be --

"In the pod system, each regional bracket is divided into four-team "pods". The possible pods by seeding are:

Pod #1: 16v1, 9v8 Pod #2: 15v2, 10v7 Pod #3: 14v3, 11v6 Pod #4: 13v4, 12v5 " 01:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)PeaceGB

  • Maybe, but then again, if you look at any actual bracket diagram that has been published, the higher seed always is listed first before the lower seed. It is the bracket that the pods are based on. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Tournament format[edit]

I'll buy that - brackets aren't box scores. If it ain't broke don't fix it. 01:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)PeaceGB

Numerous listings in the NCAA Basketball Tournament pages have asterisks, but there is not key explaining what these asterisks mean. At one point I thought that they indicated OT games, but if that is the case in he brackets for each tournament (which seems accurate), then the use is incosistent since Duke has an asterisk beside the school name in 1999 (runner up) on this page: [[1]]

Does anyone know what this asterisk signifies?

I have a somewhat of a different question. If two seeds meet in the Final Four with the same seed and are not the 1 seeds, who gets to be the home team? Ie. Butler(5) if they face Tennessee(5) in 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Final Four Location Update[edit]

I noticed there are locations for future Final Four venues, however there is no mention of the agreement between Indianapolis and the NCAA that requires the Final Four to be held in Indianapolis an average of once every 5 years until 2039 ( I believe Indy also is the #1 contingency city if a city has to back out after being awarded the Final Four, but I am not sure as to where this information is located.

Mid-majors drought[edit]

Someone who knows the subject better than I do should handle this, but I think a mention of the failure of any schools from non-major conferences to reach the Final Four between 1979 (Penn & Indiana State) and 2006 (George Mason) is worth mentioning. It has received substantial press this week, with the non-major schools referred to as "outsiders." Example, quote referring to GMU: They are the first true outsider to crash the quartet since Penn and Indiana State both got there in 1979. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

All Conference National Title Game[edit]

With wins in the National Semifinals, LSU and Florida will have an all SEC National Championship game. Three times it has happened in NCAA History: 1976 (Indiana defeating Michigan), 1985 (Villanova defeating Georgetown), and the last time it happened was 1988 (Kansas defeating Oklahoma).

We can only hope. Let's not get ahead of ourselves though, eh? :) BMetts 22:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Semifinalists should be added[edit]

It appears that the "Final Four" has been merged into the "NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship". What if someone is looking up the teams comprising the Final Four? I get the champion and runner-up, but no semifinalists. The NCAA produces a guide each year of the Tournament history. It is even called the Men's Final Four Records Book. Eliminating the semifinalists was a bit rash.

You can find the 2006 guide (released before the 2005-06 season) at:

Heathebe05 11:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

agree. I think this page should include the semifinalists. Venue and city can be merged into one column for the space on the page.

--- The semifinalists should be added. reaching the "Final Four" is worthy of being in Wikipedia. here are just three recent examples. 1. Michigan's State's run of three consecutive Final Four 1999-2001, including the 2000 championships, and again making it in 2005. 2. University of Maryland's gets to the Final Four in 2001, returns and winsthe championship in 2002. 3. George Mason's 2006 "cinderalla" run to the Final Four. To get there, the Patriots had to beat three former champions in UNC coached by Roy Williams, Michigan State coached by Tom Izzo and finally UConn coached by Jim Calhoun.

North Carolina's NCAA Championships[edit]

Browsing through the NCAA Championship pages and realized that North Carolina was only put down for four National Title when they had in fact won five. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bravesmannumber1 (talkcontribs) 23:23, October 23, 2006 (UTC)

Not so. Their first title, according to the site, was not an NCAA championship. They were voted by the Helms Foundation as the national champions, beating out a few other colleges for the title. This was not NCAA sponsored, and therefore, isn't relevant, interesting as it is. --NomaderTalk 06:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but in that case Kansas should show 3 and not 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree as well, and edited Kansas to reflect that this is the "NCAA ... Championship (section)." If KU fans want to claim 5 championships they can find somewhere else to claim it, its not appropriate here.


Just wondering if anyone could put up some map of the teams from around the country who play Div-I basketball. the NCAA Football wikipedia site has similar maps for Div I-A, I-AA, and NAIA, which are pretty sweet. I dont know who set those up but doing that for Basketball (with all the 330-odd teams) would be cool Intrepidsfsu 14:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Latest changes (3/16)[edit]

In reverting some vandalism, I may have erased some legitimate attemps by someone else to update info. Sorry about that. Gopher backer 04:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I took care of it. Good catch on the vandalism. ChazBeckett 04:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I found an issue with the number of championships won by different schools. Somebody, a potential vandal, added 4 future titles to UCONN which included 2011, 2012, 2015 and 2016. I removed them to avoid future confusion Reynolds001 (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)User:Reynolds001 3 April 2011--Reynolds001 (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC).

Tournament Trends[edit]

I realize all of this is "trivia", but the following bullet quite reminds me of something ESPN would pull out of its collective HAT, shall we say, as an obscure piece of meaningless trivia:

"The 2006 tournament was the first tournament in an even-numbered year since 1990 in which one of the #1 seeds did not lose in the second round. (This means that from 1990-2004 inclusive, a #1 seed was upset during the tournament's first weekend every other year.) Since the tournament expanded to 64 teams, no #1 seed has lost in the second round in an odd-numbered year."

Can this truly be considered a "tournament trend"? In my opinion, let's include it under trivia, or get rid of it.

Mudsville geo 13:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Tournament Trends[edit]

The article states: "#1 seeds: Since Kentucky won their championship in 1978 as the #1 team going into the tournament, only five teams have won the National Championship while being ranked #1 in the polls going into the tournament: 1982 North Carolina, 1992 Duke, 1995 UCLA, 2001 Duke, and 2007 Florida."

Florida was not ranked #1 in either of the 2 major polls when the last Coaches and AP polls came out before the start of the 2007 tournament. They were ranked 6th in both. Florida was however given the #1 overall seed in the tournament by the selection committee which has nothing to do with either of the 2 main polls. Ohio State was ranked #1 in both polls and also recieved a #1 ranking in the tournament, though not the overall #1. Also, instead of saying "the polls" the article should state the names of the 2 major polls (USA Today/ESPN Coaches Poll and the Associated Press Poll).

However, Florida was ranked #1 in both major polls at the beginning of the 2007 season. They did not keep that rank throughout the whole season though.

This section needs to be clarafied.

Gatorshiz 19:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What is the criteria for this section? Wasn't Indiana ranked No. 1 in 1976 when they won the tournament? I'm also thinking that UCLA was the top team at least a couple of the years they won the tournament. (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The criteria for the #1 teams winning the tournament seems to be based on a ranking system that was introduced for the 1978-79 season after the 1978 championship, in which case Kentucky does not belong as the 1978 #1 and championship team ( see a source at ).Amerindianarts (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC) The statement above is inaccurate, this site lists seeds, not rankings, KY does belong as 1978 #1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The NCAA record book actually has a section on this, I will update to match and hopefully we can avoid the confusion going on. Ryan2845 (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


Has there ever been a case in which a team that was ranked in a top 25 poll at the end of the conf. tournaments did not make the NCAA tournament? If so, (or if not), maybe this info should be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure there was. It rarely happens today because the tournament takes 65 teams, but the most recent time was in 1993, when UNLV, coached by Rollie Massimino, finished the season ranked 25th by AP but ended up in the NIT. Also, certain teams on probation weren't allowed to go to the tournament. (NC State in 1973 was ranked #2 and had to stay home, as was La Salle in 1969, both for that reason.) Finally, before 1975, only one team per conference could make the tournament. Cheemo (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Another question: Why is there a list of the largest venues on this page? If there is a list of largest venues, it ought to include the championship sites, like the Superdome, otherwise this list of largest teams sites is a bit deceptive. (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

List of champs in this article is necessary[edit]

This article needs a list of the champions in the main page. It's too hard to find it in all the links for the casual user. It should look something like the women's table: NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Championship#Women's Division I basketball champions. I can't think of a good reason why a table like that shouldn't be on the main page of this article. Seancp (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It was moved to NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship records. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Lowest Seed in Elite 8[edit]

It's listed as Chattanooga in 1997, which isnt true, UTC lost to Providence (a 10 seed) in 1997. I will do some research as to who the lowest to advance to the elite 8, but it wasnt chattanooga in 97. I suspect it may be loyola marymount in the hank gathers era, but i have to confirm this.

UPDATE: It was Missouri in 2002 (a bizarre tournament year), they made the elite 8 as a 12 seed. If someone wants to challenge that please do, but i'm going to change it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 

RELATED QUESTION: The entry has only 4 15 seeds winning a game. Vermont beat Syracuse a few years ago so I believe the correct number is 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That Vermont-Syracuse game was #13 vs. #4, not #15 vs. #2. -- (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

2006 Tournament under discussion of Final Four seeding[edit]

Under the discussion of the final four, the article currently cites the 2006 tournament as an example of how the #1 seeds are set up to match the overall #1 vs the overall #4, #2 vs #3 in the Final Four. (Duke vs Memphis, UConn vs Villanova). The paragraph gets a little unwieldy because it talks about what would have happened. I'm wondering if, in light of all four #1 seeds advancing this year, it would be advisable to rewrite that paragraph to use 2008 as an example (Overall #1 North Carolina vs #4 Kansas, #2 Memphis vs #3 UCLA), since these matchups will happen.

-PK9 (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:NCAA logo.svg[edit]

The image File:NCAA logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

List of winners by year[edit]

If the Winners table is left basically as it currently is, then I suggest the minor modification of listing the years for each team with the most recent year first. Then when you sort by the year column you can more easily see the winners for the last several years at the top of the list (instead of having to search down the list to see who won in 2008 because they also won in 1952). --Marylandman Marylandman (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Article desperately needs a list of winners by year. I just found it on "NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship Records," but in that case the article is mistitled, as the actual champion and runner-up aren't "records." Meanwhile, this page is muddled with all sorts of useless trivia that would be better served on a "records" page.

Winners are already listed NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship#Winners Ryan2845 (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, winners by year is linked to in a "see also" link on the first line at NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship#Tournament trends. The chart is way too big to list in this article, which is likely why it was split off. It might could be put in a more obvious place to be easier to find, though? I'll let someone else make that call. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with the original post. The primary table this article should have at or near the top is one showing winner, runner-up, other Final Four participants and MOP. I would think one of the main reasons people come to this page is to look and see who won which year, count Final Four appearances, etc. This is the essence of what peopel want to know about the Tournament, but I know I find it easier to go to to answer most questions rather than this page. Rikster2 (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you just go to NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship records instead of this page when trying to find that info? Cardsplayer4life (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I could, but it feels like you need to go to too many pages to get what could be consolidated onto one concise table, something like this:

Year Champion Score Runner-up Semifinalists Most Oustanding Player Venue City
2009 North Carolina 89-72 Michigan State Connecticut
Wayne Ellington, UNC Ford Field Detroit, Michigan
2008 Kansas 75-68 (OT) Memphis North Carolina
Mario Chalmers, Kansas Alamodome San Antonio, Texas
2007 Florida 84-75 Ohio State Georgetown
Corey Brewer, Florida Georgia Dome Atlanta, Georgia

To get this info currently, you have to go to three different "See Also" pages (NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship records, List of the NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament Final Four participants and NCAA Basketball Tournament Most Outstanding Player) when you could have it all on the front page with links to more detail - gives an executive summary then allows users to drill down where they want to. Not a huge deal, just a thought. Rikster2 (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a those 3 articles could/should probably be merged into one article, but I still feel like it should be a separate article. It's generally wiki-style to put long lists on their own page. So i'd be all for merging the other two articles into NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship records, with a see also link to it at the top of this page. I think articles like Superbowl and List of Super Bowl champions, World Series and List of World Series champions are good examples to follow. Ryan2845 (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ryan. It is definitely nice to have everything in one place, but if the articles get too long with content and tables and whatnot, it makes them hard to navigate and find information on. The Super Bowl and World Series examples are good ones to follow. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me - if all that info were on one page it would be much easier to navigate - regardless of if it's on the main page or not. Rikster2 (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Number of possible brackets[edit]

The number listed (which is 2^63) is the number of ways of filling out the winners of all the games, given the initial starting bracket. This is NOT the same as the number of ways of seeding the teams and dividing up the 4 regions, as the article suggests. THAT number is something more like 64!/4!, if we care about seed order and who is in what region, but not which region is which. It's on the order of 10^87. (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


I think Bubbles should be discussed in the article. It's a major part of the selection. JAF1970 (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

References question[edit]

Should the reference to a math forum be left in there? It's not something anyone would challenge, but it's not a reliable reference. Enigmamsg 23:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Automatic Bids Question[edit]

The article states that 30 conferences have their winners receive automatic bids, yet there seem to be 33 basketball conferences. The Great West Conference article states that it's 1 of the conferences that doesn't have an automatic bid, but I can't find the 2 other conferences. Which ones are they and why do these 3 conferences not have automatic bids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There are 31 with auto-bids. The two without are the Great West and the Independents.

Second round?[edit]

Cool idea, but when I added up the total number of games played, it seemed like there was a discrepancy - that is, a game or few was not counted. Could someone run over the math again? Also, I'm going to slightly reword that section, to make it a little less redundant.Simplebutpowerful 20:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Something of a mess[edit]

This article, like many articles edited by loads of people, has a lot of problems. The one that's jumping out at me right now is that someone trying to figure out how the tournament operates today has to sort through the history that's mixed in with the section that supposedly tells us about the tournament's format. Yet there already is a section in there that is supposed to cover the history of the format changes.

What I am going to do is to separate the present from the past. Coming first will be the stuff that explains just the way the tournament has been operating since this year's changes. All the other changes will be listed below. I don't pretend to have done this perfectly, but I think it will be much more organized, and much clearer to the person wanting straight-forward info. It'll be a big change, but please give it due consideration before tearing it apart. Thanks. (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


I know I'm not very smart, but this section of "Tournament Trends" (reproduced below) really confuses me.

Round of 32[edit]

Since the inception of the 64-team tournament in 1985, the following results have occurred for each pairing:

  • In the 1/16/8/9 bracket:
vs. #8 vs. #9
#1 41–10 (.804) 53–4 (.930)
  • In the 2/15/7/10 bracket:
vs. #7 vs. #10
#2 47–17 (.734) 23–17 (.575)
#15 0–1 (.000) 0–3 (.000)
  • In the 3/14/6/11 bracket:
vs. #6 vs. #11
#3 33–26 (.559) 22–11 (.667)
#14 2–11 (.134) 0–3 (.000)
  • In the 4/13/5/12 bracket:
vs. #5 vs. #12
#4 30–28 (.517) 16–11 (.593)
#13 3–11 (.214) 1–8 (.111)

Is there a better way to express this data? (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-free image gallery[edit]

This article has a non-free image gallery, and to my knowledge, is in violation of our non-free content policy. Is there something I am missing, or is it fine to delete all the logos? I've brought this to the attention of the non-free content review forum as well, as I probabyl won't have the time to devote to this if there is any resistance.-Andrew c [talk] 19:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Should be kept for historical purpose. Ucla90024 (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    • That is not a good enough reason under our policy. This is a clear example of a violation (NFCC #3a/#8). On top of the gallery aspect, none of the images have valid fair use rationales (a second form of violation). Some of the images did not mention this article at all, violation of #10c. Others may have had a default type of fair use rationale, but was not filled out properly. The "purpose" field was left blank, which is only allowed if the image is used in an infobox, again a #10c violation. Because of this, I am deleting all images, as this is a non-arguable violation. -Andrew c [talk] 19:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Host cities table - move to separate page?[edit]

In this edit, I've added what I believe to be an important table, but I'm not sure it should be in this article. Previously, the article merely listed future host cities for the Final Four. Why only the future cities? Shouldn't the past cities be in here as well? People would like to know where their team won the tournament back when their grandfather was attending.

The problem is, it's just too big, I think. I truly think it's a solid table, but I would like someone who has the ability to do so to create a new page and place it in that new page. Does that make sense? (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, it is at the bottom of the page, so it doesn't really interfere with the reading of the article, and perhaps it could even be referred to at times in the article. I don't care, I'll wait and see what others say. (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Section: Performance by teams entering the tournament with one loss[edit]

I believe that this is the single largest sub-section in the whole article. You know why? Because there have been lots of teams entering the tournament with just one loss. It's a long section for a (relatively) common phenomenon. Accordingly, I don't really think this is notable enough to even include in the article. Hey, what if I were to create a section on Teams entering the tournament with only two losses? Hey, a two-loss season is pretty damn impressive, if you ask me. But what it would lead to would probably be another 50% length to the article. It'd be ridiculous. I'm not trying to gore anyone's ox here, but I really think that articles like this suffer from massive trivia creep, and this is a good example of something that the article can live without. I think I'll just delete the whole subsection. (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Region section[edit]

Look at the following section, currently titled Region names:

Prior to 2004, each region of the tournament bracket was identified geographically, e.g. West, Midwest, South (or Southeast), East. For the 2004, 2005 and 2006 tournaments, the regionals were identified by the city in which the regional finals were held, e.g. Phoenix, St. Louis, Atlanta, East Rutherford in 2004; Albuquerque, Chicago, Austin, Syracuse in 2005, etc. The official reason for this was that the regional identifications had begun to confuse fans now that first and second round sites were no longer tied to a particular region; for example, even though in 2002 the Indiana Hoosiers played in the South regional finals held in Lexington, KY, it began the tournament playing in Sacramento, until then a city considered part of the West region. Another possible reason for the shift in identification is that not infrequently the regional final sites did not fit easily into geographical designations. For example, in the 1979 tournament, the Mideast regional site was Indianapolis, while the Midwest site was Cincinnati, which is 115 miles to the southeast of Indianapolis. In 1987, the Midwest regionals site was again Cincinnati, and the Southeast site was in Louisville, 90 miles to the southwest. In 1994, the Southeast regional finals site, Knoxville, TN, was actually the northernmost of the four sites (West: Los Angeles; Midwest: Dallas; East: Miami). The geographic confusion was not limited to regional finals sites; in 1990, Atlanta hosted first- and second-round games in the East regional, while Richmond, 530 miles to the northeast of Atlanta, hosted first- and second-round games in the Southeast regional. However, regional sites reverted to being identified geographically in 2007.[1]

See here: The first sentence again says, Prior to 2004, each region of the tournament bracket was identified geographically, e.g. West, Midwest, South (or Southeast), East. Well, as far as I could tell, that was true this year as well. (This year they were East, West, Southeast, Southwest.) So how is it any different now? The section states that a new naming method was implemented, but I don't see any evidence of this today. I understand that the writer of this section was frustrated by the confusing names chosen for regions, but they were the names, so I'm sorry, I just don't see much coherence in this section. Even if it was correct when written (which is not immediately apparent), it is not correct now. I'm removing it. (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


Wooden Trophy?[edit]

The article states:

The NCAA awards the National Champions a gold plated Wooden NCAA National Championship trophy.

That makes sense, given what a legend this John Wooden guy appears to be to you basketball fans. Only problem is, when I first read it, "wooden" wasn't capitalized, so I was confused, thinking that it meant that the trophy is made of wood. Then I decided it probably referred to this Wooden guy, so I capitalized it. But then I thought, I should make sure, and I went to verify it on the internet, and lo and behold, I can't find anything saying that the national championship trophy is named the Wooden Trophy. There is a Wooden Award given to outstanding player(s), but I can't find anything saying that it's a team award. Could someone more knowledgeable help out with this? (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

  • No, all the NCAA trophies are not named for John Wooden. Ucla90024 (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Then, do they have a name (you know, like the NFL's Lombardi Trophy)? Can you fix the article? (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you fucking fix it yourself, asswipe? (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm done[edit]

Okay, well, it's not perfect, but this article is far, far better than it was a couple of weeks ago.[2]. If anyone comes back here and wonders what the hell happened to their article, let me say that 98.5% of what I have done is just to reorganize the information that was already here. Occasionally it meant removing redundant or incorrect or simply unimportant material, but only rarely did it involve adding anything, and when I did I noted it in my edit summaries. I've merely reorganized, instead of expanding, for the simple reason that I am extremely ignorant about college basketball. I only did all this work because I came here to have some questions answered about this event and found the article to be horribly misorganized and, in places, incomprehensible.

I don't expect to be back here, so I won't be able to answer any questions about what I've done. On to other things! (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm really done. (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Regional rotation?[edit]

This section has bothered me for a long time:

*Prior to 2004, the Final Four matchups were determined based on rotation between regions. For example, in 2000 the national semifinal matchups featured East vs. South regional champions, and Midwest vs. West; in 2001, East vs. West and South vs. Midwest; in 2002, East vs. Midwest and South vs. West; and so on. This was changed in 2004 to a procedure which seeks to match the teams more fairly: the #1 seeds from each of the four regions are ranked as overall #1 to overall #4, and the regions are placed in the bracket such that the regional champions from the regions of the #1 and #4 overall seeds will play in one national semifinal, while the regional champions from the regions of the #2 and #3 overall seeds will play in the other national semifinal.

I now realize what has been bugging me: This system that supposedly existed prior to 2004 would only make sense if the regions were always the same four regions, thus making a recognizable rotation possible. And indeed, it appears to me that East, West, South, and Midwest are the most common regions, but I looked back and there have been many years (before this year and even before 2004) with names like "Southeast", "Southwest", and whatnot. I believe the statement above simply constitutes one sincere editor's mistaken belief, probably formulated in an attempt to understand the change that occurred in 2004. But in reality, if before 2004 the regions were not seeded based upon the #1 seeds, then they must have been randomly matched against one another. It's the only logical possibility that occurs to me. (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Inaugural Champion[edit]

The inaugural champion (University of Oregon) should be added to the info box.

Tournament Seeding - First Four Question[edit]

It seems inadequately explained why a 12 seed has to win three games to reach the Sweet Sixteen while a 15 seed only has to play win two games to reach the Sweet Sixteen. The seeding article mentions that the teams are paired for competitiveness but not why they are seeded where they are. The result suggests that there is a secondary control factor on seeding (automatic qualifiers can be lower seeds but first four must be seeded from at large teams ?) but there is no explaination of this mystery.

A more controversial seeding aspect is the appearance that the overall number one seed has a harder path to the final four than a "lower" number one seed. Or the seeding propensity to pit strong mid majors against each other in the first round instead of giving them a chance against "power conference". An example this year is Wichita State versus Virginia Commonwealth. It is like the committe decided to do another bracketbusters instead of giving two of these teams a chance to advance. It would also be interesting to see how the seedings stack up with some of the newer power ratings to at least see if the brackets are evenly matched - does Kentucky have to beat more teams with a higher RPI or BPI than the other number one seeds?

This is a first post of any kind so I'm not sure what the etquette is here so I hope I'm asking a question in the right place. Don't want to mess up the page. (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Phil M.

Kentucky Championship 2012[edit]

Someone already listed Kentucky as the 2012 national champion before the game was over. That should not be done. Please wait until the game is actually over before posting any information that reflects they had already won. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Blue Bloods of College Basketball[edit]

Hello, I was just wondering what's your opinion is on me adding a section about the "Blue Blood" teams of College Basketball, (UCLA, Kentucky, North Carolina, Indiana, Duke, & Kansas.) I'm wondering if this would be an appropriate subject for this page. Specifically it could note important influences to the game by these teams and/or their coaches, their success across the tourney, and their connections and one another (for example coaching trees, rivalries, etc.) Though I may create a new page so that it doesnt bog down the article. T

Thanks, WildcatsBengalsandReds — Preceding unsigned comment added by WildcatsBengalsandReds (talkcontribs) 02:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I have decided instead to create an entire new page, seeing as I can find no place for such info. If you have any suggestions, please reply I need them!

Thanks, WildcatsBengalsandReds — Preceding unsigned comment added by WildcatsBengalsandReds (talkcontribs) 02:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm a North Carolina fan, but I think deciding which teams should be listed as "blue blood" would be highly contentious. I'm sure Connecticut and Villanova fans wouldn't be happy that their teams were left off, just for starters. MyUsernameIsNotThisSentence (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


Connecticut is the only team that had both men and women winning the National Championship in the same year. This happened in 2004, and again in 2014. Can someone please add this into the article, in an appropriate section? Thanks. Go, Huskies! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't think it's appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

List of drought teams[edit]

The University of Maine has never attended the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. Also, the states of Maine and Alaska are the only states without any representation at the tournament in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

External Links Updating[edit]

A lot of the external links don't work anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

6.1.3 Additional low-seed stats[edit]

The existing statement below doesn't make sense, needs more clarification/definition. In which 2014 tournament round was the 'highest total seed differential' achieved? Which games qualify to have their 'seed differentials' added to the total? I am assuming only the upset games, in which a lower seed beats a higher seed. Furthermore, #14 Mercer v. #3 Duke and #8 Kentucky v. #1 Wichita State would not even be games in the same round .. so why would their differentials be added? Aren't we considering the 'highest total seed differential in a NCAA Tournament round'? Again, which round? Move to strike the statement until it is defined more clearly.

"2014 produced the highest total seed differential in a NCAA Tournament round, with 111 total. (Such as when 14 Mercer beat 3 Duke that differential is 11 and 8 Kentucky beat 1 Wichita State for that differential is 7 so the differential total after those games would be 18.)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Opening section, last paragraph, re: multiple/recent winners[edit]

Why should Maryland, Michigan State and Syracuse get mentioned as winners of one championship since 2000, while the other 3 one-time winners get no mention? Either list the other 3 (Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville) or drop the 3 that are now listed.

"Since 2000, Duke and Connecticut have each won three championships; Florida and North Carolina have won two championships; Maryland, Michigan State, and Syracuse, among others, have each won one championship." (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


Why is it called "March Madness"? I understand that "March" part, but why madness? I assume that in this case the word "mad" has a positive connotation. Perhaps everybody is "mad" about it, as in "highly interested"?

Please explain the name in the article, not here.

-- (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 21 June 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Unopposed and there's obvious consensus to move this page. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

NCAA Men's Division I Basketball ChampionshipNCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament – The page was boldly moved in March 2015 by Charlesaaronthompson with the explanation: "Official name is NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship".[3] However, Wikipedia uses common names, which are not always official names.

Using a Google search, there are 9,000,000 hits for "'ncaa tournament' basketball",[4] but only 500K for "ncaa championship' basketball".[5] The New York Times has a dedicated search page for "NCAA Basketball Tournament" [6].

On Wikipedia, all the year-specific pages for the tournament are titled like 2015 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament (see Category:NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship for others) To my knowledge, "championship" generally refers to the final game with two participants, not the 68-team tournament. Articles for championship games are named like 2015 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship Game (see Category:College basketball championship games in the United States), so a generic title like "NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship" would also be ambiguous whether it refers to the championship game or the tournament. —Bagumba (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I was pinged by Bagumba (talk), so my response is I'm fine with whatever the consensus is that's reached by other editors (not me). Whatever the consensus is to name the article, I promise not to move it back. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I'd have to agree with Bagumba, I think it should be moved back. Championship would be confusing with Championship game. Lincolning (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Starting this year, some conferences are having playoffs to decide who gets a bid to the NCAA Tourney. The "championship" should be the game between two teams that survived the week. It should also be noted that the lead actually says "is a single-elimination tournament", which is more than one game. — Wyliepedia 21:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The official name can be mentioned in the lead. The official NCAA title is a broader use of "championship", but secondary sources rarely ever refer to it as the "NCAA Championship" when discussing the tournament as a whole. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with Bagumba's reasoning. João Do Rio (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Makes sense. Rikster2 (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support For all the reasons above. Littlekelv (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 31 January 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: All moved. Unanimous support for the proposal, so that is a clear consensus in favour of these moves. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

  • PS When I checked the backlinks to update navboxes, I saw that there were dozens of similarly named articles which can now be WP:BOLDly moved to the format agreed here. Pinging the nominator @Arbor to SJ, who may want to undertake this task. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

– The NCAA officially uses "'Division I Men's Basketball" and "Division I Women's Basketball" in its web pages for their tournaments. Furthermore, the logical order to describe these tournaments are "NCAA Division I", the league/division of the sport, followed by the sport's name, "men's [or women's] basketball", in describing what the tournament is.

Other pages use "NCAA Division X Sport Tournament", like List of NCAA Division II Men's Basketball Championships, List of NCAA Division III Men's Basketball Championships, and NCAA Division II Women's Basketball Championship (which should probably be changed to "Tournament" per the June 2016 discussion on this page). Arbor to SJ (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Procedural note: NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Tournament is currently a redirect. Per WP:RMCI, "only pages with non-redirecting content should be requested to be moved", for bot reasons. Since both the original and the target redirect to the same title, and both have practically no history, I've gone ahead and removed them from this RM as an unnecessary move. JudgeRM (talk to me) 22:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
OK I got it, fixed the move request. Arbor to SJ (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. The sports are usually referred to as "men's basketball" or "women's basketball", so it's strange for title to move the gender modifier away from the sport name.—Bagumba (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and logical flow. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and following points. Rikster2 (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mid Major charts[edit]

Hello. I am having trouble figuring out where the mid majors are in their respective tournaments, especially the older tournaments with less than 64 teams. I might be wrong, but there seems to be some discrepancies with the team articles listing their NCAA tournament performances and Sports References website. I tried my best, but I might have some errors that I have overlooked. Can someone check out the charts and make sure the teams are in the correct slots? Thanks. Jay (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Host for a Venue[edit]

Can someone add an explanation of the official/actual role for a "host" for a venue? Like whatever conference or whatever school is the "host" for a venue. Is it symbolic? Do they act like an olympic organizing committee? I like seeing who is the host for some reason, especially if it is a small school, I think it's cool, but what do they do? How are they chosen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 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 regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 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) 18:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Seeding History and Statistics[edit]

With the increased attention to seeding, Seeding History and Statistics added based on existing wiki data on other pages to provide overview and history of development and #1 seeds by region and overall. Many teams still need to be linked to their respective season within the table, the links for such are often found by clicking on the tournament year in the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Split Tournament Statistics section into own article?[edit]

Has anyone suggested this in the past? I greatly appreciate the Tournament Statistics section of the article; seeing as it's rather long and self-contained, I think it would easily be worthy of its own article. Simplebutpowerful 18:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 30 March 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: speedily closed. This move has a snowball's chance in heck of making it through. The OFFICIAL NAME OF THE TOURNAMENT that it's OFFICIALLY known by is the "NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament". "March Madness" is just a nickname - one that's perfectly fine staying as a redirect. It's like moving the Super Bowl page to "The Big Game", or "Richard Nixon" to "Dick Nixon". I'm sorry, but that's just not how it works. If a nickname is used, like, 99% of the time (e.g. "Bill Clinton", "Brexit", etc.) or becomes the official name, then we move it. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

NCAA Division I Men's Basketball TournamentNCAA March Madness – It is the common name for the event. (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose move. The current title is stable, and I fail to see how "NCAA March Madness" is the common name rather than just the colloquial name. ONR (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - That is a branding term already covered in NCAA March Madness (CBS/Turner). I do think NCAA March Madness should be pointing at the dab page March Madness (disambiguation), which itself should probably be at March Madness. -- Netoholic @ 08:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The common name is "NCAA Tournament", which is ambiguous, hence the longer current name for disambiguation purposes. "NCAA March Madness" is an alternative name, which should remain as a redirect.—Bagumba (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The common and official name is NCAA Tournament. March Madness is just a nickname.--Rockchalk717 22:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Correction needed under "Seed pairing results" >> "Round of 32 results"[edit]

Since the article has no edit option, I can't make this correction myself. So, someone .. please do!

Under section 6.5.2 "Round of 32 results" >> "In the 2/15 vs. 7/10 bracket:" ... there is an error as follows: For the "Total" row, "vs. No. 7" column, the winning percentage for a 27-58 record is listed as "(.301)". This should be corrected to "(.318)".

Thanks for your time, MVG (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ 27÷85=0.318