Talk:2007 NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament

message: Please put the date that Selection Sunday occurs. Hangfromthefloor 16:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Selection Sunday

message: Feel free to add teams as need Natural number is e 21:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also wait till the championship game is over before you add a team. There will be some exception to this, such as "Team A" has a large lead over "Team B" in the final minutes of game play. Natural number is e 00:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Teams

message: FYI, I've requested semiprotection in advance of the release of the bracket to ward off any anonymous vandalism that will likely occur in the coming hours. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 21:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move! There was one allready... these guys should redshirt indefinitely!!--Nitsansh 22:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were a few after the field announced and edits including one slur and obscene refernce to the "play-in" game.  (talk) NoseNuggets 9:15 PM US EDT, Mar 12 2007.
(reduce indent) IMHO, Semi-protection wouldn't be necessary until when the tournament actually begins (i.e. March 14th).  IP addresses haven't been vandalizing the page . . . yet. Real96 01:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protect

message: What time the brackets will be announced?--Nitsansh 22:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see... that's why I saw the top seeds here before they were announced on ESPN. I don't recieve CBS here.--Nitsansh 22:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That was either vandalism or someone testing the bracket template. I'm not sure. They've been removed. Leebo T/C 17:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorry for my ignorance...

message: This section should be expanded to include why these teams are of interest.  I imagine this section is really teams generally considered snubbed by the Committee.  So, we should talk why their absense from the NCAA tourney is worth noting.  Why Missouri State but not Vermont (in the NIT) or Oklahoma (not in NCAA or NIT)?  This should give the list more credibility too.  Let's turn the list into prose.
This section is a good place to (briefly) mention the NIT.  No more than a couple of sentences mentioning that these teams will be playing in the NIT, among other teams, and what the NIT is.
Articles about snubbed teams:
* http://proxy.espn.go.com/ncb/ncaatourney07/news/story?page=2007NCAAsnubs
* http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/sports/college/s_497228.html
* http://www.uticaod.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070312/SPORTS/703120334/1030
-- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 14:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a section on snubbed "bubble teams", like Syracuse and Drexel, would open too many doors to violating neutral point of view and possibly original research. And the other thing is, the NIT isn't relevant. This isn't an article about 2007 postseason college basketball, it's just about the NCAA championship. Leebo T/C 18:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see, this list is already in the article. There isn't a standard format for "snubbed teams" section in these articles, and I think it shouldn't be discussed. Unless there is widespread controversy outside of the teams themselves whining (afterall, every year there are more good teams than at-large bids) then it's not really notable. Every season sees inexplicable bubble bursts. Leebo T/C 18:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   I see your point, I hinted it.  As you said, there needs to be some level of controversy to mention any team on this article.  That's what I'm looking for, some justification for the teams to be listed here.  The definition of "notable" is subjective - for example, should Oklahoma State be on that list?  If we let the experts in college basketball speak for themselves who belongs in that section, I think we could avoid NPOV.  Teams that did sneak in (or barely missed out) is part of this the 2007 tournament's history now and I think are worth a mention.  Assuming we do mention any snubbed teams, mentioning they are participating in the NIT might make sense (otherwise mentioning NIT really wouldn't make sense in this article).  This list, in its current form, I would vote to remove.  -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 20:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone just added the Iowa Hawkeyes (17-14) to the list. Were they even a serious bubble team (let alone one of the "notable" snubs)? This is the kind of unencyclopedic POV material this section invites. Perhaps a very brief section about the difficulty of making the last few at-large bids (with info from the selection committee, like the high number of 20-win teams) would be appropriate. But I think we have to nix this list soon. Leebo T/C 15:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I've just removed it (want to put money on how long before someone adds it again?).  "Difficulty of making the last few at-large bids" is a good way of putting it, I like it. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 15:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable teams left out 

message: The channels and times really should not be in Wikipedia since Wikipedia is not a TV guide. If you want to know channels and times, check out ESPN, CBS Sportsline, Yahoo! Sports, or a multitude of other sources.  Anyone up for removing this junk? -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 23:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia != TV Guide 

message: Natural number is e 16:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: YES. I find it quite useful and topical, and think every year's NCAA Tournament article should have one just like it! Now if I just had the time to do the legwork... :(    CollegeSportsGuy 02:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: NO.  A list of schools by conference is notable, as there is usually controversy about conferences being under- or over-represented.  But a correlation of teams by state seems pretty arbitrary.  With the list of qualifying teams, teams by state, game schedule, and brackets, teams are listed on this page four times!  I think it would be fine to only list the brackets (and get rid of qualifying teams, teams by state, and game schedule). Hoof Hearted 14:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I agree. The brackets at the bottom should be enough, but there isn't enough room to list all of the team's information. We should keep the Qualifying Teams > Listed by Grouping & Seeding section because it includes record and conference. Other than that, I see only redundancy in listing by state, etc. Hangfromthefloor 21:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After reviewing the tables a little closer, I see your point about including the record, conference, and berth type in the Qualifying Teams section.  But I'd still like to see the teams by state and game schedule go.  Hoof Hearted 13:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem with listing one or two teams for each state is - what team gets cited as the example?  Someone will always be adding their team if it isn't included on the list.  The whole list strikes me as original research.  Are there sports commentaries that note the state trends?  Hoof Hearted 17:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've seen articles on ESPN.com, CBSsportsline, and other reputable sites breakdown the NCAA qualifiers in a given year by state. So it is a trend that is followed. - CollegeSportsGuy 09:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I concede.  Realize that I'm looking at this article from more of an encyclopedic standpoint since I'm only a casual sports fan.  Hoof Hearted 15:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: NO, they don't choose schools via states, they choose it via conferences. It's like having a list at the NFL playoffs listed via state (imagine, Washington - Seahawks, Indiana - Colts). And the teams do not strictly represent their states, they represent their schools and conferences. --Howard the Duck 16:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the schools by state section really necessary?

message: I'm a bit concerned about having commentary added to the Scores and Schedule section of this article.  Already some of the comments are bordering on POV and as the tournament goes along they're only more likely to get that way.  Simply noting the top scorer and rebounder for each team should be sufficient, anything else is too inviting. z4ns4tsu\talk 19:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this whole section could be replaced with a more prominent link to the relevant WikiNews articles (e.g. ). Summaries of every game are not appropriate on this page. A paragraph about the finals, final four, and maybe exceptional earlier round games (like the Duke/Kentucky regional final in the 1992 tourney) would be entirely sufficient. --dantheox 03:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in "Scores and Schedule" section 

message: There are some sections that in my opinion need to be in there own section. I was thinking of doing this to locations of the games, and what about moving the Scores and schedule to a new page or cutting down on the game summaries. Natural number is e 18:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholeheartedly second cutting down on the game summaries. These really belong on Wikinews, not Wikipedia. This page should have at most four or five game summaries. --dantheox 23:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thirded.  Hoof Hearted 20:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization

message: It might be worthwhile to note that the higher seeds have enjoyed unprecedented success in this year's tournament, winning 48/56 games thus far, and the regional finals is comprised with the highest group of seedings ever (4 #1s, #3 #2s, and 1 #3) -PK9 18:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chalk 

message: Is there any way we can improve for 2008's tourney?  Feel free to post them here. And thanks to everyone for helping out on this year's articles. NoseNuggets 1:53 AM US EDT Apr 3 2007.
*Pictures.  Surely some wikiuser has pictures from the tournament, maybe three or four, but don't overdo it.
*Semi-Protect the page from the start.  We already know that it will be vandalized, and getting a username isn't too hard.
An article with this many editors and this much attention has a lot of potential to become a featured article.  Also, as Wikiproject College Basketball develops, mechanics and technicalities of the genre will be gradually hammered out, giving us a formula to work by.  I look forward to it. Wrad 01:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have an official policy on where game writeups should go and what they should look like. There's clearly a great deal of interest in writing them, but they clutter the article, making it enormous. Wikinews is a fabulous place to put longer game writeups. This page could then link to those writeups, and include shorter summaries of the semis and finals. Also, it should be agreed upon before the tournament which statistics are important enough to include. Bids by conference is reasonable. Results by conference might be. Bids by state is not. I like the idea of bringing this article up to the level of a featured article candidate. By cleaning it up, we can set an example for what the 2008 page should look like. --dantheox 04:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I just stumbled on the fact that all tournament articles from 2004 and earlier contain no game summaries other than the semi-finals and finals (and no separate articles for the earlier rounds).  These articles seem much more concise and relevant.  Is it our policy to keep the game summaries for 2 or 3 years, or can we prevent them from being written in the first place?  Hoof Hearted 20:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are no summaries because those pages were generated by a computer program I wrote. It only had bracket/conference/seeds information, so unless another contributor added game summaries, there shouldn't be any. --dantheox 22:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We could also eliminate the state and left out sections. Is anyone going to care about this information two months from now? Ten years from now? --dantheox 22:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Thoughts 

message: For everyone's entertainment: I created charts of the edits to this article by date and wrote a blog post about it. Edit count tracks events pretty well. Selection Sunday was the biggest day, followed by the first weekend. Edits tapered off in the later rounds, but still remained at or above what they were in 2006. --dantheox 04:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charts of revision history 

message: I'm adding this as an expansion to the Final thoughts section.
I don't see why these articles can't cite their sources better as events happen.  Other current event articles, such as Virginia Tech Massacre and Spider Man 3, are loaded with sources.  I'm going to stick a tag on this one and start trying to find some sources, but this is something that could be better next year. Wrad 20:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: I was about to do a wholesale revert of them, but I noticed the discussion here, so I'll air my grievances here - the need to adhere to the NCAA's "official" listing for teams in brackets is downright absurd.  In the NCAA's own Final Four records book, you'll see in the brackets section that in prior tournament appearances:
*Southern California was listed as "Southern California" (2001)
*George Washington was listed as "George Washington" (2006)
*Central Connecticut State was listed as "Central Conn. St." (2000)
...and that's just in the first three I looked up.  Get the point?  These aren't "official bracket abbreviations", as has been claimed earlier.  It's just a PDF bracket thrown together with abbreviations that fit in the lines provided.  Nothing more, nothing less.  And last time I checked, the NCAA didn't keep their official files stored on CBS Sportsline's servers (view the location of the image).  It's not even their own official bracket.
The standard for all collegiate athletic references on Wikipedia has been to use the common name of the teams in question.  For this reason, I'm removing this stuff that sources the CBS Sportsline printable bracket as the bible, including a revert of Southern Cal. to "USC" (as found here), and instead using the common name as well as will fit in the bracket.  If anyone can find something that directly states that the NCAA uses a specific name to refer to a team in that way instead of simply inferring it from other sources, I see no reason why it should be any other way.  --fuzzy510 05:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, let's use the most popular name. --Howard the Duck 16:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bracket abbreviations 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.newsnet5.com/cbaskc12/11362970/detail.html
** In 2007 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament on 2011-05-26 02:55:22, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament on 2011-05-27 15:13:07, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament on 2011-06-15 16:11:14, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link