Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College baseball/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

6 Team Double Elim bracket

Oughgh...I see you started work on a 6 team double elim bracket (Template:6Team2ElimBracket). Don't want to sound mean or anything but that's not how the NCAA tourney did 6 team double elims back in the day. Essentially, all six teams, seeded 1-6, played in the first round. The winner of the 1v6 game was guaranteed to play the loser of the 3v4 game. The winner of the 2v5 game was guaranteed to play the winner of the 3v4 game. The losers of the 1v6 and 2v5 games played each other in an elimination game.

The winner of the (W:1v6 vs L:3v4) played the winner of the (W:2v5 vs W:3v4). The winner of the (L:2v5 vs. L:1v6) game then faced the loser of the (W:2v5 vs W:3v4) in an elimination game. The winner of the .......AHHHHHHH THIS IS GIVING ME A HEADACHE. Hopefully this gives you a start. I'll explain more later if you need me to. Seancp 19:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for all of your hard work on this. I tired working with those template before and wanted to pull my hair out, so I know how tough it can be. And after I thought on it a little more...I don't even know if we could make a displayable bracket for wikipedia...I tried drawing it out and it's just too convoluted. Maybe I'm wrong....I hope so. Seancp 19:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Shoot. I knew I should have asked before I got started on it... oh well :) I couldn't get that really long 200-some page link you posted working... Have you seen a graphical representation of it anywhere else? If I can see what it looks like, I can give it my best shot. Oh, and no offense taken - I'm glad to help any way I can! Oughgh 21:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In case you missed me posting this on the front page, here's a nice link that describes the 6 team double elim format: http://www.nettally.com/jcarr/Baseball/brack-old.html Seancp 19:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Worst Conference Tournament Format EVER

Check this out: [1] and tell me if thats not the worst format you've ever seen for a tournament. Jober14 12:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately that format goes back to 1980, before that, they did a 7 team bracket, where the #1 seed got a bye, while the other 6 played in single elimination games for the first round. After the first round, the remaining 4 teams played a double elimination tournament. So this is going to stop my editing of ACC tournaments until we get this bracket issue resolved. Jober14 18:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

For the 7 team bracket, would it work to just use play-in games like 2004-5, along with Template:4Team2ElimBracket after that? Or if you would rather have me create a new template, I can work on it. Let me know. Also, I have no idea how to make dotted lines in the templates - after all, the black lines we see are actually the borders of invisible table cells between each game... not sure how much I'll be able to do there. Oughgh 01:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. You could just have 3 play in games, and then one four team double elim bracket. Seems to be a good solution. Seancp 01:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I found that if you use the word dotted instead of solid it changes the borders. I might go with the 3 play-in games, I just don't want it to get confusing to the reader. We have enough confusion going on with the crazy 8 & 9 team ACC formats Jober14 02:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Advertise this WikiProject!

I think it would be benificial if yall went to your respective team's message boards and advertised our project. I logged onto my favorite Clemson forum, TheTigerNet.com, and posted information about what we are doing here as well as links to the project and the different Clemson-related articles I have been working on.

Here is a link to My Post - Jober14 20:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll post a message on my favorite LSU forum. That's really the only sports related forum I post on. Seancp 20:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Big 12 Tourney

I just created a Big 12 Baseball Tournament page. Feel free to check it out and fix it up. Seancp 20:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Props to Drew1830

Just wanted to thank Drew1830 for all the excellent cleanup work he's been doing on the College World Series pages. Thanks mate! Seancp 20:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael Papajohn

I submitted Michael Papajohn for the "Did You Know" feature just to see how things work. I really don't think it's a good candidate since the article isn't well sourced (I'm working on that). But anyway, it would be neat to see some of our articles get mentioned in the Did You Know section. So if you've got anything you're working on and it meets criteria then go ahead and submit it. Seancp 16:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ugly ACC Bracket

Alright jober, this is what I could come up with right now. Template:ACCBaseball80-03 Hopefully that will be a decent start. I suggest linking to the image you made on the tourney pages, it helps a lot. Oughgh 23:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm...I was going to fix the 1992 SEC Baseball Tournament page today with the new 8-team double elim bracket you created and I started work on it and then ran across a snag and it didn't match up. So I was like, "Damn, we'll never get this stuff fixed up." But then here you come with the bracket template and clear everything up! Well, I might be getting ahead of myself, but I'm pretty sure this is what the SEC used from like 1987-1992. Thanks man! Seancp 23:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I just ran the 1992 tourney through your new template and it fits. AWESOME! Seancp 23:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

AWESOME! Thanks a lot! Now I can get back on track with these ACC tournaments Jober14 23:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

So that's the format you were talking about way back when when we started this project that you didn't think could be implemented graphically on wiki? If so, sweet, we just killed 2 birds with one stone! Oughgh 23:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, at the time I thought it was a normal 8 team double elim....then when I tried to bracketize it today I found out I was wrong. Seancp 00:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

NCAA Tournament Format

When I first started working on college baseball stuff here on Wikipedia there were only a few College World Series' documented and absolutely no NCAA tourneys documented. Well, time has passed and things have changed and we've gotten a lot of excellent college baseball information on Wikipedia now.

So anyway, the first NCAA Tournament I documented was the 2000 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament. When I first set out to do this I wanted to have a separate subsection for each regional, but at the time there was no 4-team double elimination bracket template. Not being bracket-template savvy, I saw that I could just use the CWS-Bracket template and combine 2 regionals into a Super Regional subsection. That format has worked well but I think the pages could be greatly improved if we broke it up into regional subsection since we now do have a 4-team double elim template (thanks to Oughgh). We only have one more NCAA tourney to fully document that this will be an issue with and that's 2001. Here's what I propose. I will go ahead and document the 2001 tourney using the 4-team double elim template for each regional under its own subsection and then I will use a best of 3 series template to document the Super regionals under its own subsection. I will not change anything on the 2001 CWS article. So once I do that I will go ahead and post here to elicit opinions on whether we like it that way or whether we prefer to keep the 1999-Present NCAA tourney articles as they are now. If we choose to keep the old way then I will changeover the 2001 tourney to the old way. If we choose to go the new way then there is really no rush to change over the already created articles....we can just do that as we find time. Anyone against this please speak now or forever hold your peace? Seancp 20:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No one has an opinion on this?????????? Seancp 17:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll speak since this project has gone quiet lately anyways. I think this a great idea. We could format it like they do for the World Series and chronicle each game. Lets go for it! Jober14 18:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa now...slow down hahaha. I didn't mean to make it like the World Series article. That's pretty detailed. That would be a lot of work for the NCAA tourney (way too many games). Here's an idea of what I meant: 2001 NCAA Tourney outline. Compare that to say, 2000. The reason I prefer this new format better is because it allow us to neatly add facts applicable to a specific regional or super regional. For an example, look at what I did for the Baton Rouge, LA Regional subsection. Seancp 18:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, I see what you mean. But I think it would work better if instead of doing all the regionals, then all the supers, what if you labeled like this:

• Athens Super Regional
  • Athens Regional
  • Clemson Regional

I think doing something like that would keep the page in the same format as we currently have it, but allow for more detailed information as you wish - Jober14 19:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jober on this one. Changing the format is fine, because it lets us add more info to the pages, sure. The one thing I'm worried about is that the natural progression from regional matchups to supers matchups will be lost. So if I want to follow say Cal State Fullerton, I can see their regional at the top, and then I gotta scroll all the way to the bottom to see where they played next. That's a major advantage the current format has. Also, in this new outline, the table of contents is getting way too long. But anyway, at the least, I think the regionals need to be grouped somehow with their respective supers. Oughgh 20:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I see what you guys mean. I'll try to mess with it a little more but from what I've learned so far, it may just be easier to stick with the way its been done for the other years. Oughgh, I still need a 2 team, 3 game series (with seeding) template for older NCAA tourneys....do you think you could hook me up with that? I put a description on the main project page in the bracket request template. Thanks. Seancp 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think the current format works pretty well to keep things organized and show a logical progression of games in a reasonable amount of space. We can always just add extra info (like your trivia about 11 years in a row at LSU or whatever) to the bottom of the respective super-regional section under the bracket in the current format. Also, changing all the tournaments already in place wouldn't be overly difficult, but it would be an unnecessary hassle in my opinion. So my vote is to stay with the current format and add info wherever we see fit. This includes updating previous years to the format we established in 2007 - including listing and linking the host cities and stadiums, etc. As for your template... piece of cake. Template:3GameSeries should be what you're looking for. Let me know if it's giving you any problems. Oughgh 22:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the 3GameSeries template. You can see it in use at 1954 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament. It'll be used in lots more places too. Man, it's going to be tough getting all these old NCAA tourneys done. They used some wacked out formats over the years. But I enjoy doing the old NCAA tourneys so I don't mind. I'll just slowly be grinding them out. Any luck with the 6 Team Double elim template? Did you see the explanation I posted for it? And I agree with y'all about the 2001 NCAA tourney page. I'll just do that one like we have all the rest. Should have that by some time next week. Seancp 22:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. It helps a lot to graphically show the progression, especially since each regional was very different. Thankfully it's all standardized now. I'm happy to keep working on these templates as you need them. I'll take a look at that important 6-team bracket this weekend... been busy working on other things.Oughgh 23:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think if a section about a particular Regional or Super Regional gets too big, you can always create a seperate page for it and then link it into it's spot in the NCAA Tournament page. For example:

Baton Rouge Super Regional

See Main Article - 2000 Baton Rouge Super Regional

This way if someone wants to expand a section they can without worrying about neglecting or over shadowing other parts of the tournament page. - Jober14 18:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Neat Project

Here's a neat project idea that might help us branch out from our comfort zones. Here's a list of coaches who have won a CWS that do not currently have an article on Wikipedia. I thought it might be fun if we adopt a coach and create an article on him. It doesn't have to be major or groundbreaking...hell, a stub would be nice. I'll get things rolling by adopting Hi Simmons. Seancp 18:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Coach	School	Year won CWS	Adopted by...
Jack Baer	Oklahoma	1951	Seancp
Hi Simmons	Missouri	1954	Seancp
Taylor Sanford	Wake Forest	1955
George Wolfman	Cal	1957
Toby Greene	Oklahoma State	1959
Marty Karow	Ohio State	1966
Jim Brock	Arizona State	1977, 1981
Steve Webber	Georgia	1990	Jober14
George Horton	Cal State Fullerton	2004	Seancp

Are We Alone?

There seems to be quite a lull here lately with the project. It seems only Oughgh and Seancp are actively participating. Are there others who just have been doing work quietly? We really need to get the ball rolling. I was snooping around the WikiProject Baseball page looking for ideas. I really like how they have it set up so you can see all of the recent edits for pages within the project. This talk page has gotten too long with all the discussion anyways. I think it's time to upgrade out efforts. - Jober14 21:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know Drew1830 was doing a lot of maintenance work on the CWS pages, but other than that I think it's just us three. I wonder if all the other people who joined just lost interest or if they forgot to put this page on their watchlist...who knows. I would love to see more involvement though. Gotta remember, it is summer, and we did just have a holiday so that could explain some of the lull. Seancp 21:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I've been having problems with my internet connection lately. I've got Template:6Team2ElimC done, and as soon as I get time and a connection, I'll finish the other 2 up and write a couple tourney pages to show how they look. Hopefully with those brackets we can finish up lots of tourney pages and then move on to bigger and better things!Oughgh 06:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Alabama coach steps down then changes his mind

Well, looks like Jim Wells is stepping down at Alabama. (http://www.tidesports.com/article/20070621/TL01/70621004/1011) I already updated the SEC baseball coaches template.

Hmmm, looks like Jim Wells changed his mind and has returned as head coach of Alabama. http://sebaseball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=686924 Seancp 12:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

6 Team Bracket

OK, so I finally took the time to draw this dang thing out. Problem is, it's more than one beast. Based on who wins when, the bracket can look drastically different. I'm thinking that the only possibly way to create this for wikipedia is to create 3 separate bracket templates, and we'll just have to pick and choose the proper one based on the outcomes of the games. It'll be a pain in the ass, but I just can't fathom how to create this any other way, even with dotted lines and stuff. I'll try drawing it up in paint to show what I mean and report back. Arg. Oughgh 00:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I drew it up in paint...it's on the main page, click to zoom in. Basically, it sucks a whole lot, and there's no way at all to get all 3 possibilities to fit in one bracket. My only possible suggestion would be to create 3 separate brackets, 1 for each scenario, and whoever is making the page would just have to determine which bracket to use based on the outcomes of the games. I know this is not optimal at all, but it's a pretty important bracket as it was used for the SEC and NCAA tourneys for quite awhile, so we need to get something done at least. Let me know what you guys think and I'll see what I can do.Oughgh 06:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're up for making 3 different brackets then my vote is to go for it. We can leave a note on each bracket template with instructions, maybe even link to the graphic you created. I don't see a better solution available unless there was some way to make a dynamic bracket template, but even if that was possible it probably wouldn't be worth all the extra work. Thanks! Seancp 12:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well I'm finally making some progress. Template:6Team2ElimB and Template:6Team2ElimC are done, and I'll get on A as soon as I can. I also wrote the 1997 and 1998 Big 12 Baseball Tournament pages... let me know what you think. Feel free to try out the new templates on some old NCAA tourney pages or something! Oughgh 19:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yearly College World Series Article Standard

I went ahead and created an article for the 2008 College World Series. The reason I did this is so that we can establish a standard. During the 2007 CWS there were multiple conflicts about what should and shouldn't be included in the article. So I'm going to break it down section by section and give my opinion. Please give your own opinions as well. Seancp 15:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The header

I think the 2007 article is fine in that the first paragraph gives the standard description, and then the following paragraphs generally focus on the champions. I would think that the paragraphs could talk more about the other teams but that's not that big of a deal. Seancp 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Participants Table

I like the participants table. I think it presents the information in a nice short, concise manner. One thing I'd like to see is the table become a template so that it is easier to fill in. If we could have it so where it just has lines like "team1 = XXXX" "conference = XXXX", etc. etc. with the template automatically filling in the links when necessary. Seancp 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

One other issue I'd like to see addressed is the listing of past CWS appearances. I support listing all past CWS appearances of a team, whereas the table now only shows the last appearance the team made. Seancp 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

We definitely need a uniform standard. The 2008 template looks good. I fooled around with the idea of showing all CWS appearances but the table got really bulky so I stuck with the current format of showing all CWS championships and just listing the last appearance. Drew1830 21:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Tournament Notes

Fine just as it is. Seancp 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Bracket

I think this section should be renamed to "Tournament" because it has three subsections ("2008 College World Series bracket"; "Final CWS standings"; "Results") that include more than the bracket. Seancp 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think all subsections are fine as they are. Seancp 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think these 3 things might deserve their own sections. After all, this is the bulk of the page - why should it all be lumped together in one section?Oughgh 16:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Good idea...I second that. Seancp 17:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

One other issue about the bracket to consider: are we linking every instance of a school name or just the first instance? I am for linking only the first instance. That's what Wikipedia's manual of style says to do and I think it looks best that way. Opinions? Seancp 17:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Just the first instance. That's how we've been doing all of the conference tourney pages. Plus it's a lot less work! Oughgh 19:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Question about the results section. Are you referring to the line scores like we've done the past two years for each game, or the table that just lists the score of each game like in the old CWS pages? Personally, I think once the bracket is added, the results table is obsolete because it doesn't contain any info that the bracket doesn't display better visually. Basically, if I were to add the bracket to say the 1950 College World Series page, can I just delete the results table because it's redundant? Oughgh 21:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I say sure, delete it, however, keep in mind that for older CWS articles, the "results table" does contain the dates of the games, and the bracket does not. In newer CWS articles where each game is documented with a box score (see: 2007_College_World_Series#Results), then the dates for each game are documented there and the "results table" is redundant. I would love to see all CWS articles documented with box scores, but I really don't think that much data is available, plus even if it were it would be a lot of work to get it input. Just something to keep in mind. I personally don't like the "results table" but I just want to let you know that it does contain date data which might be of interest to some researchers. Seancp 02:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

All Tournament Team

Fine just as it is. Seancp 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Notable Players

I think this should list any players that were drafted by MLB teams. Seancp 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good way to determine who's a notable player, good idea. Only problem is when a player gets drafted a year or two after they play in the CWS, then you have to go back to that page and figure out who all should be included. But still a good system I guess.Oughgh 16:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, yea, that's a bit different a situation. But that's something that you just can't plan for. Or for instance, let's say some no-name second baseman for a CWS team commits a high profile crime years from now and garners tons of publicity...then he would be put into the "notable players" section, but there's no way to forecast that. It's just something we have to work with. I suggested the MLB draft standard just to limit the amount of players listed. Seancp 16:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

CWS records tied or broken

Fine just as it is. Seancp 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

CWS Leaders

I wouldn't mind seeing this section removed. Seancp 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If it's something that's specifically notable, it can just go in the post-tournament notes or something.Oughgh 16:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Post-Series Notes

Fine just as it is. Seancp 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I was a bit confused about this during the CWS this year. How exactly is this different than "tournament notes"? Is "tournament notes" something like, "Oregon State is the only team to be attending their 3rd CWS in a row" and "post-tourney" is "Oregon State is the first team to win back-to-back since 97"? I guess I just answered my own question sort of.Oughgh 16:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point....perhaps this can just go into tournament notes as well. Even with a note like the back-to-back thing, it could go into tourney notes and not seem out of place. Seancp 16:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See also

Should list link to current year's NCAA Tourney, and main NCAA Baseball Championship article. Plus any other relevant links for that season. Seancp 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

External links

Pretty much same as above, with links to NCAA Baseball site and any other relevant sites. Seancp 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Old Tourneys

I tried adding brackets to the old CWS articles that don't have them - turns out they don't use the standard double-elimination format that we're used to... I'll get on making a new bracket soon.

In other news, does anyone know where to info on game scores for old NCAA tourneys? For example, the 2001 regionals - I've only been able to find teams' records in the tournament, but not the actual matchups and scores. Any help? Thanks. Oughgh 05:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This has game score info for all old NCAA tourneys. http://www.ncaa.org/library/records/baseball/college_world_series_records_book/2007_cws_records.pdf. It doesn't have entire box scores, though. Seancp 11:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That link rocks! Another question - where'd you find the all-tourney teams for the old SEC tourneys? And do you know when they started seeding teams, by chance? Oughgh 21:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

SEC All-Tourney Team link: http://www.secsports.com/new/sports/bbc/bbcalltournteam.html I don't know when they started seeded teams though. Sorry I haven't been active lately, I've been out of town on a business trip. Hopefully I'll be less busy next week. Seancp 21:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I think it might be safe to assume that the host team is the #1 seed. And for the other 1st-round game, I have a hunch that the team that is listed 2nd is the home team and therefore the #2 seed. But that's just a hunch. Oughgh 22:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I could probably also figure it out from the Boyd's World conference standings. I think I'll start adding those to the pages too, it's useful info. Oughgh 18:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)