Talk:2011 NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament

message: 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)
thread_title: Possible expansion?

message: 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)
thread_title: RATS!

message: 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)
replies: text: I like the first one best.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anything particularly bad about all four in a row? Grsz 11 23:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a widescreen monitor so they all fit. Dunno about the others. However, since they're not truly brackets why not just use ? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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…" —C.Fred (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First four bracket 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Standardize 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Conference table 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: This. - Masonpatriot (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posting scores only after the game, not making in-progress updates? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Record by conference and one-and-dones 

message: 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)
replies: text: Why? Grsz 11 23:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Duke-Michigan 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree, this is really annoying.  24.41.47.147 (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  STOP UPDATING THE SCORES WHILE THE GAME IS STILL BEING PLAYED. 

message: 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)
replies: text:  There should be a ---> * Denotes each overtime at the bottom of the brackets Moonraker0022 (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, save the time and link to Overtime (sports) ---> OT. 02:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Overtime 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mult TV networks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The First Four are not "Play-in" games 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: This definitely is not the place to have this discussion, so everybody can drop it. Grsz 11 17:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Home page news? 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110424152305/http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/sports/butler-vcu-products-of-weak-tournament-field-1.2524891 to http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/sports/butler-vcu-products-of-weak-tournament-field-1.2524891
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-men/hc-jacobs-uconn-column-0406-20110406,0,493167.column
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm trying to add a custom short description to this article, but it is getting over-written by the auto-generated "Wikipedia list article". Does anyone know how to fix this? --Canned Soul (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this a list article?