Talk:2007 NCAA Division I baseball tournament

message: You can't name the Super Regionals now.  For example, the first one has already been named the "Nashville Super Regional," well, what if Vanderbilt loses in the Regional round...then the Super Regional will not be in Nashville.  I think it should be returned to something like "Super Regional #1" until the Super Regional sites are 100% confirmed. Seancp 16:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh oh....did I jinx Vanderbilt????  Sorry out there to any Commodores fans! Seancp 12:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your apology is NOT accepted.  :-p  --After Midnight 0001 00:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. It was a heartbreaking weekend for those of us at Hawkins Field. At least I was able to get shot of the field for its wiki page! Oughgh 22:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming Super Regionals

message: The brackets are not right.  The losers bracket should not be filled in because no games have been played yet.  Seancp 17:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Brackets

message: Can I move the Automatic Berths section more to the bottom? I think that when people visit this page, they would be more interested in seeing the bracket and outcomes first rather than the list of 30 conference winners. -- Oughgh 5/30/07
:I like that idea.  If no one else protests then go for it. Seancp 22:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headings Order 

message: How are we placing teams in the bracket that play each other?  Is the higher seed on top or bottom, or is the team that is playing as the home team on bottom?  Personally I like the home team idea but it doesn't really matter.  I just think that we should reach consensus so that everyone is on the same page. Seancp 03:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding of brackets is that the team that wins the "top" game in the first round goes to the "top" spot of the winner's bracket in the second round, no matter the seed or home/away. In this case, that means the 1 or 4 seed should be on top always, and it looks like that's the case right now. Are we linking the teams every time they're mentioned in the bracket, or just the first time in the first round? I know in previous years every entry was linked, but it seems a bit redundant. And good job updating today everyone - I was at the Vandy game (which was awesome! Price had 17 Ks), and the score was already posted when I got home. Oughgh 03:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I look closer, it looks like some of the loser's brackets might be messed up. But again, I believe the loser of the top game should go to the top line of the loser's bracket. I'll wait a little bit to see if anyone argues before I fix it. Oughgh 03:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure wikipedia policy is to link to an article once per section.  Having every mention of a team in a bracket linked is wasteful and looks kind of ugly.  I know it was done for a few of the previous years but I had intended on going and changing that and never got around to it.  Seancp 12:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio?.  And yes, it pretty much says once per section. Seancp 12:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm okay with that. I don't think it looks particularly good, but it is consistent with Wikipedia style and doesn't make much of a difference. I also moved teams that lose regional Game 4 to the bottom of Game 5 - fits with the rest of the bracket, since the top team comes from the game shown (Game 3) Jyardley 06:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I had already re-ordered them before I saw this discussion, but I did them the way that Oughgh suggested....  As far as the "over-linking", I'll go to the talk page of the person who made all those links and ask them to comment here, so they have the opportunity to explain their rationale. --After Midnight 0001 15:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  I personally like the links in the bracket.  I think you need to do all or nothing.  I think the 2006 version looks stupid with just the first game for each team with a link to the page.  It makes it easy for someone to click on it.  IMO, I think the easier it is for someone to navigate the better.--Sgautr6 21:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of teams in bracket (top or bottom)

message: Wouldn't it make more sense to put the conference in the first column since the table is sorted alphabetically by conference? Wpride33 18:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Oughgh 20:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it is sortable.... --After Midnight 0001 02:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Automatic Bids Table

message: I don't think we need a dash for the second game. The table automatically removes the border on the second score if it is left blank, and if there's only one score and the team advances to the super regional, it's obvious there was no second game. It's more efficient and more consistent with how I did about five other tournaments. Jyardley 02:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally like the dash.  But if consensus is reached to leave them out then that's fine.  Anyone else have an opinion on them?  Also, what do you mean the border is removed if the second score is left blank?  I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.4 on Win XP SP2 and I see no difference regardless of whether there is a second score listed or not. Seancp 02:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, I just looked at this page in Internet Explorer 7 and it really looks like shit.  I see what you mean about the border being removed if there is no score.  Check it out in Firefox....it looks much cleaner and neater. Seancp 02:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I realized that last night when I got back to my own computer (not work) and was on Firefox. Shrug. I still don't like the dash because I think it's unnecessary. I didn't mean to be a jerk about it, though. Does anybody else care except us? Jyardley 19:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries.  It doesn't look like anyone cares about the dashes.  No big deal anyway.  If you could, when you make a change like that, just leave a note about what you did.  Like with the bolding of the Regional seeds for the national seeds, I didn't realize what that was for....just keep everyone on the same page with updates.  Thanks.  Seancp 19:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second-game dashes