Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College baseball/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  6 Team Double Elim bracket 

message: Check this out:  and tell me if thats not the worst format you've ever seen for a tournament. Jober14 12:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Worst Conference Tournament Format EVER 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestion: Advertise this WikiProject! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Big 12 Tourney 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Props to Drew1830 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Michael Papajohn 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yep, I just ran the 1992 tourney through your new template and it fits.  AWESOME! Seancp 23:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AWESOME! Thanks a lot! Now I can get back on track with these ACC tournaments Jober14 23:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ugly ACC Bracket 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neat Project 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Are We Alone? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alabama coach steps down then changes his mind 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  6 Team Bracket 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Yearly College World Series Article Standard 

message: 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)
thread_title: The header

message: 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)
thread_title: Participants Table

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Bracket

message: Fine just as it is. Seancp 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: All Tournament Team

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

message: Fine just as it is. Seancp 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CWS records tied or broken

message: I wouldn't mind seeing this section removed. Seancp 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: CWS Leaders

message: Fine just as it is. Seancp 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Post-Series Notes

message: 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)
thread_title: See also

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Old Tourneys