Talk:2008 NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament

message: There are asterisks all over this page that don't seem to lead to any asterisk saying what they are about.
GeneCallahan (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asterisks 

message: Let's make this article a GA this year! I propose we summarize the games in roughly the same way they are currently organized on the 2007 page. If we do that, rein in trivia sections, and cite everything, we'll have GA status within a few weeks after the end of the tournament.
Also, anybody who is going to any of the games, take some pictures! Upload them onto wikipedia so we can put them on this page. It'll make it so much better. Wrad (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather, please give your pictures a free licence and upload them to Wikimedia Commons, so they can be used on all projects, not just the English Wikipedia. Other language versions including other language Wikinews often have no usable graphics to choose from. --Mareklug talk 00:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposition 

message: just so everyone knows, i edited the section of the western region second round in regards to the heavily disputed ending of the UCLA/Texas A&M game, where Donald Sloan was fouled (photographic evidence proves it) though no foul was called. It just suggests that the play was controversial, not that anyone is a cheater or "should have lost." Swishymcjackass (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: UCLA-Texas A&M Controversy

message: How about some sourced material on bubble teams as the tournament approaches? Wrad (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem with talking about bubble teams is that in the weeks leading up to the tournament the bubble picture fluctuates so much that anything you write could be irrelevant just days later. It might be relevant to include a paragraph on bubble teams who are not selected once Selection Sunday has come and gone. There are usually lots of good quotes that can be sourced on those. Leebo T/C 17:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Let's wait until things solidify. Wrad (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bubble teams 

message: They just said that on CBS just now. DandyDan2007 (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coppin St. vs Mount St. Mary's in play in game 

message: What are we planning to put under the Sixteen, Eight, and Final Four categories? I would prefer the number of teams the conference had in that round, as it's easy to tell that if the conference had 4 in the Sixteen and 2 in the Eight, they went 2-2. Grsz 11 02:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Later rounds

message: I've added a game summary as in last year's article. We need to keep it to only the unusual/notable games, meaning close games, upsets, record-breakers all the stuff the media really focuses on more. Otherwise it will get out of hand. Wrad (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, unlike last year, I didn't count 9-seed over 8-seed wins as upsets. Last year, those wins were a bit more notable since there were so few upsets, but now they're kind of drowned out by bigger things. Wrad (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Personally I don't think #9 seeds are significantly worse than #8 seeds to ever call a 9 beating an 8 an upset. Jon (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't it me more encyclopedic to summarize each game, and thereby not provide the opinion that the only games that matter are the ones in which 12 and 13 seeds won? I can understand it takes a lot of room, and perhaps should be it's own page. -Kingpin4646 (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we need any more summary than the bracket for those games? I'm honestly undecided. I just didn't want to have a chaotic "cheer for your team" section that took up tons of space like last year. Wrad (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, we could summarize the first four rounds in each region with one section for each region, and only summarize individual games beginning with the final four. If we want to do all the games, that's the only reasonable way I think we could. Wrad (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game summary 

message: I'm beginning to agree that we should summarize each game at least a little. Upsets, close games, and records breakers, should still get the most attention, because we need to reflect what our sources are reporting and those are the most notable things.  But I think a comprehensive article should at least devote one sentence to each game. If we're going to do that, though, I propose that we organize the first four rounds by region instead of round. Sound good? Wrad (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think headings of regions, and sub-headings of rounds with in each region should organize things well, upsets and close games do deserve more description. I wonder if some of the record stuff shouldn't be it's own section. Especially records that don't apply to the games themselves. There could still be a regional or round summary that covers how many upsets there were in a region or in Tampa or whatever. Kingpin4646 (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any records so far in this tournament that aren't fine in game summaries or round summaries. If we set them to the side we risk making a trivia section list. Ick. Wrad (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for Game summaries 

message: I'm struggling with this section. It seemed a bit repetitive before. I think it should explain the basic structure of the tournament without mentioning anything about who won what or who qualified for what. That belongs to other sections. I'm just finding it tricky to explain how everything works to someone who has never heard of the tournament before. Wrad (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the details on the tournament format are on NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship#Tournament format. I am not sure what your overall goal is to put on this article. A digested, abridged version? IMO, it is hard to explain the "pod" system without substantially referring to the other article, or basically cutting and pasting the details from the other article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's what I'm not sure about. What should our goal be? Wrad (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tournament procedure 

message: As you add scores and game summaries please add citations.  It's easier to do it now than later.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This  or its equivalent is all the reference you need. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The recent 2nd round additions are exactly what I'm talking about. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree. People, you can't just add stuff on this page without citing it! Just use ESPN or something! Wrad (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations please 

message: Can we all please avoid peacock terms. Wikipedia is not the sports page; it's an encyclopedia. Let's just state the facts and let the reader determine whether something is a "near upset" or that a heavily-favored team "barely escaped" with a win. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Avoid peacock terms

message: How about some sources other than ESPN? Of the 69 sources currently listed, 50+ are ESPN. There are several other primary sources available, including the New York Times, Sports Illustrated, CBS Sports and others. If a goal is to get this article to GA and FA status, it needs to have diverse sources. Truthanado (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, the sources are Associated Press, not ESPN. But I see your point. Go ahead and add other stuff, if you want. One source will probably say the  same as the other. Wrad (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Other places to look would be pages for individual teams or conferences. Wrad (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Use Google News if you need to find more articles. BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I corrected a few sections, but there may be some more out there. The tone of most of game summaries was absolutely inappropriate. Grsz 11 22:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: Can't we use "M" instead of "MW" for "Midwest"? --Howard the Duck 05:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that earlier and thought the same thing. But then got distracted. Grsz11 06:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bracket 

message: What's wrong with updating the scoring? It's a current sports-related event, so it obvious that "information may change as the event progresses", as the tag says. And WP:NOT does not cite anything relating to score updates in an article :). Udonknome (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it matters. People update it all the time. Trying to stop it is like trying to stop a tidal wave. Do whatever you like. Wrad (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did. Someone undid my edit saying "wikipedia is not a score ticker". Udonknome (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what he's talking about. People always do that and it's no big deal. besides, it was just the halftime score. Wrad (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final game score update 

message: Be semiprotected -Airtuna08 (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Shouldn't this page?

message: I'm sure that the tournament, at least the Final Four, was seen outside the United States.  But I have no idea on what networks or in what countries.  Was it really on the CBC, as I have read about in one of the local newspapers here?  I also heard that Rick Majerus was on the Canadian (CBC?) telecasts, calling the games from a studio in Vancouver then flying to San Antonio between game dates for a speaking engagement.[WHEW!]  Also, was it on NASN for all of Europe?   What about Asia/Japan? - Desmond Hobson (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please cite everything that you're adding? We're trying to reach GA status. Wrad (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Television outside the United States

message: There's been a succession of edits by now two IP addresses about what they assert is an uncalled foul in one of the games. Are there any other editors who have an opinion on whether the addition should be allowed to stand? —C.Fred (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing it up on the talk page so others can chime in.  I've looked that the edits, the pictures, and the talk pages.  The pictures show what appears to be a foul. But one wasn't called. Based on that, I feel that the sentences about the event should definitely not say something similar to "a foul should have been called."  That is an opinion about what one saw.  The referees watched it too, and chose not to call a foul.  That is their official judgment call to make, and they decided it that way. "No foul."  As for us and this article, if someone can find an article or review about the game, incorporate what it says about that play, and source it properly, then we can probably keep some form of it in; such as it being a "controversial non-call" on the last shot. We won't keep that excessively displayed link either, unless it is as part of the sourcing.  This anonymous IP editor is persistent, but hopefully he can put those efforts into finding sources on the issue, and then together we can address what actually happened.  The outcomes (winner, and no foul called) won't change, but that game-changing moment can still be properly addressed in this article while still maintaining a neutral point of view. --Mtjaws (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest IP edits - non-called foul 

message: According to http://www.wreg.com/wreg-ncaa-ruling,0,2372523.story and many other sources, I'm sure, Memphis has forfeited the entire 2007-08 season, which includes this tournament. Will this be treated as any other team that's vacated victories? 173.88.94.212 (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be treated the same way.  I'm not sure what that means.  Does it make every game they played a forfeit adding a win to every team they defeated?67.188.128.11 (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  "vacate" does not equal "forfeit". There is no change in record of any team other than Memphis which simply has 38 fewer wins and 2 fewer losses on their all time record. Ryan2845 (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memphis 

message: The article claims that Memphis fouling Kansas on what turned out to be the final play would almost certainly have locked up a victory for Memphis.  I hate to use "controversial" since it's generally used as a weasel-word, but there was significant controversy over this at the time.  It's been a while, but the opposing case as I remember it was that Memphis had a very small window in which it made sense to foul, and Kansas managed to hit a very closely-guarded three within that window.  If Memphis had fouled too soon, chances are that Kansas would have hit at least one free throw, fouled Memphis immediately and, given the way Memphis was performing at the line, come out of the free-throw exchange with a one or two point deficit instead of three, with time left to score.  If they waited too long, Kansas had a chance to hit a three and tie it.  I don't know if Memphis was trying to foul on the last shot (I remember hearing somewhere that they were), but keep in mind that that risks losing outright if the shot goes in despite the foul.  Given how closely guarded it actually was and the quality of the shot, that's not too much of a stretch either.
At the very least, it doesn't seem fair (not to mention NPOV) to imply that Memphis blundered.  Memphis left Kansas needing to execute perfectly even to have a chance to tie.  If you leave your opponent in that situation and they do execute perfectly, they've just plain outplayed you.  It happens.  And that's my view (as a Kansas fan).  Memphis played an excellent game and Kansas beat them anyway.  --Dmh (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an analysis by a Harvard student supporting the idea that there's not much to pick between fouling and not fouling when up three with time running out. --Dmh (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memphis not fouling Kansas 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on 2008 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080724003954/http://www.star-telegram.com/marchmadness/story/566220.html to http://www.star-telegram.com/marchmadness/story/566220.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on 2008 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110520185057/http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jtNepGspaFOstLn7-8SPCAjroH0wD8VJDRR00 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jtNepGspaFOstLn7-8SPCAjroH0wD8VJDRR00
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 2008 NCAA Men's Division I 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/20080517083543/http://www.ticketsolutions.com/ncaa-selection.asp to http://www.ticketsolutions.com/ncaa-selection.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080319103936/http://sports.espn.go.com:80/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3296941&categoryId=2459792 to http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3296941&categoryId=2459792
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080325052118/http://sports.espn.go.com:80/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3297006&n8pe6c=1&categoryId=2459792 to http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3297006&n8pe6c=1&categoryId=2459792
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080328021447/http://www.cbsnews.com:80/stories/sportsline/main10732664.shtml to http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/sportsline/main10732664.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080326214450/http://msn.foxsports.com:80/cbk/story/7941558/Early-exits-becoming-bad-habit-for-Duke to http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/7941558/Early-exits-becoming-bad-habit-for-Duke
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://sportsreport.freedomblogging.com/files/2008/03/shipp0324.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080409065957/http://www.ncaa.com/uploadedFiles/Sports/Basketball_(M)/2008D1MensBasketballBracket.pdf to http://www.ncaa.com/uploadedFiles/Sports/Basketball_(M)/2008D1MensBasketballBracket.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 2008 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/13098232/ncaa-rejects-memphis-final-appeal-of-vacated-wins?tag=headlines%3Bother
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=284000043
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://sportsreport.freedomblogging.com/files/2008/03/shipp0324.jpg
*Added  tag to http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20080406%2FSPORTS05%2F20741313%2F1005%2FSPORTS
*Added  tag to http://images.westwoodone.com/images/pdf/pressreleases/2008%20NCAA%20Final%20Four.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080409065957/http://www.ncaa.com/uploadedFiles/Sports/Basketball_%28M%29/2008D1MensBasketballBracket.pdf to http://www.ncaa.com/uploadedFiles/Sports/Basketball_%28M%29/2008D1MensBasketballBracket.pdf
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) 04:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified