Talk:2007 NCAA Division I baseball tournament

Regional locations

At one point, this page listed both the city that was hosting a regional as well as the stadium (ie Nashville Regional at Hawkins Field). Any reason that info got removed? I found it interesting. Also, are we making it policy to link to each school's main site, or link to their athletics/baseball page? Either way, they should be uniform. --Oughgh 5/28/07 11:23pm EDT

I believe that it should be linked to a Baseball section of an Athletics page if that exists, otherwise the main page will due. I suggest this because it is most relevant to the information. Also, User Torlek deleted the baseball stadiums information as well as an explanation of which teams go where win they lose/win. This page should be created in a manor that anyone who looks at it will better understand the tournament and so far, certain users are thwarting those efforts. Jober14 05:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason I deleted that was because it wasn't uniformly applied across the entire article and the edit was old enough that it seemed the user that made it wasn't making an effort to extend that level of detail to the rest of the page. I feel the locations and explanation of how a double elimination bracket works to be superflous information, but if you wish to include it please take the time to extend it to the rest of the article.Torlek 06:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I also like the stadium listed with the city of the regional. More information is better in this case. Also, in other college sports wikiprojects (unfortunately college baseball doesn't have one yet) they always link to the relevant sport site if available, i.e. Miami Hurricanes baseball, then to the main athletic site if available, i.e. Miami Hurricanes, then to the main university site, i.e. University of Miami. That should be the policy of this page too. As far as explaining a double elimination bracket, well, NCAA Division I Baseball Championship already has a nice explanation of the tournament format. Perhaps someone could expand that and then just prominently link to it from this page. It's already link to in the "See also" section. Seancp 11:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I should be linking only to real pages, not subsections, correct? As in, Vanderbilt Commodores instead of Vanderbilt Commodores#Baseball, right? Also, is there a reason that the first #1 seed in each regional was bold and the rest were normal? I noticed this appeared in the 2006 NCAA tourney page as well - is there a reason for it or just a typo? I changed it here to be uniform because I couldn't see any reason for it to be there. Hope I'm not screwing anything up, and I'm happy to stay on top of updating this page over the next couple weeks. And my username is "Oughgh" but for some reason wiki always logs me out after I sign in. -- 5/29/07 1:30 EDT

To be honest, I don't know if it's official WikiPedia policy to not link to subsections, but one arguement against it is that subsections can and do change frequently while article names change much less frequently. Also, I would think it would be neater and easier to manage to just link to Vanderbilt Commodores. A wikipedia user could easily find the baseball subsection in that article. As far as the #1 being bold in the 2006 article...well, I think someone did that to indicate who was hosting the regional but never made a footnote to clarify it. Also, it's not always accurate because a #2 seed can host a regional and often does. On some of the older NCAA baseball tourney pages, we had an asterisk next to the host schools name, but I don't even know if that's the most efficient way. Honestly, the part where it says "Nashville Regional at Hawkins Field" should really be enough to denote which school is hosting that regional. Thanks for your help on this article. Seancp 20:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

National seeds' No. 1 seed was bolded. Nothing to do with hosting. I'll put them back. Jyardley 20:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha! Thanks for the clarification! Seancp 20:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Why No Team Logos?

How is this breaking fair use?

• I agree, the images are utilized on the school/team pages so how is including them here violating fair use? They'd be a nice addition.Torlek 18:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The logos on the team/school pages are allowed because it's their page. However, this isn't. Therefore, it violates fair use because it would be including them on a page other than their own page... does this make sense? --Ksy92003 (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In a very pointlessly roundabout way. Guess there's no reason to needlessly call down the format&content nazis.

I would really appreciate it if someone could explain this more and why they are being jerks over this issueJober14 05:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming Super Regionals

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)

Uh oh....did I jinx Vanderbilt???? Sorry out there to any Commodores fans! Seancp 12:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your apology is NOT accepted.  :-p --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Brackets

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)

Headings Order

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)

Schedule

It would probably involve a change to the actual bracket template, but would it be useful to display when each game is scheduled to be played? Or would that be cluttering up the whole page too much? People might be curious and check here to see what time their team is playing. But if you think that's going over the top, I understand. - Oughgh

Take a look at 2006 College World Series. Under the section "Schedule" there's a schedule of all the games played. We could do something like that for each bracket in this article but it would take a lot of work and I personally don't find it all that necessary. A link to the NCAASports.com baseball schedule page is easier and provides the same information we could provide. But if you're willing to undertake the task I won't protest. Seancp 22:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, that list would get quite long. For the CWS there's only 8 teams and like 15 games, but here there's 64 teams. Just drop the link right underneath the Bracket heading? - Oughgh

I think the accepted standard is to have a section towards the bottom named "External links." But that wouldn't really be very visible in such a long page. Also, I don't know how NCAASports.com is going to do their schedule page yet. If they have separate pages for each regional then I would suggest having a temporary link underneath each bracket. When the tournament is done we could remove the links. If NCAASports.com only has one schedule page for each day of competition (that's how they did it for the 2007 Softball Tournament) then it wouldn't make sense to have 8 different links to the same page under each bracket. I don't really know which is best. I know I prefer to use wikipedia for tournament updates, for example, I currently use wikipedia to get all my updates on the current NBA playoffs, so I understand how information like this can be extremely useful. If you can figure out a way to make it neat and meet wikipedia standards then I'm all for it. Seancp 22:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find an actual schedule on NCAAsports.com, but I know the format of the schedule for each regional, so I added that table at the top. At least it explains which day each game will be played, and the format of the bracket. If you don't think it's helpful, feel free to remove it. - User:Oughgh 5/31/07 12:24pm EDT

Location of teams in bracket (top or bottom)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Automatic Bids Table

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)

Done. Oughgh 20:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Now it is sortable.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Second-game dashes

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)