Talk:2009 NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament

This article was nominated for deletion on July 29, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject College basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college basketball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College basketballWikipedia:WikiProject College basketballTemplate:WikiProject College basketballcollege basketball articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[NAIA Women's Basketball Championships#Division II|2009 NAIA Division II women's basketball tournament]] The anchor (#Division II) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Win %?

In the Record by conference section, there's a column titled "Win %", but the #s listed aren't percentages. Anyone have preference on changing the title or changing the #s? If we change the title, what's the right thing to use -- "win ratio"? -Jcbarr (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is how "percentage" is always represented in the sports world. I think it should be OK the way it is. Most major sports sites use the same notation. [ESPN for example]. Ryan2845 (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because ESPN has a bunch of jocks who can't add means we should represent incorrectly here? -Jcbarr (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard sports nomenclature to express certain "percentages" as the raw ratios. On base percentage in baseball is another example. Winning percentage is standard for newspaper sports sections. —C.Fred (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN was just an example of it's usage in sports, what I was saying was it's not incorrect notation given the context of the article. It's been recorded that way in sports for decades, who are we to change it now? Ryan2845 (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN is a reliable source for this matter so we can follow those bunch of jocks who can't add. –Howard the Duck 08:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season articles

The creators of the page are missing the opportunity to encourage page creation during the high traffic tournament period. In the qualifying teams sections each team should be linked to a 2008–09 School Mascot men's basketball team article. Many of the redlinks would be created, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it. :) ~EdGl (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I buy that. Way too many teams will be redlinks. I would encourage the use of Template:cbb link though. Oren0 (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about separate articles for each region, like:

–Howard the Duck 03:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sites for the first two rounds are the same, but they are both listed. This is redundant and should be changed. 76.30.223.106 (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Ucla90024 (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Record by Conference

There are two ways to list the conferences. I prefer to remove all conferences that go 0-1 and put the in a note at the bottom. Another way is to leave all conferences in the chart. I feel the chart looks much cleaner if it is shorter. Check out the versions from 2007 and 2008. Any suggestions? foxman9815 (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all the extra spaces so it looks a lot better now, but i'm fine with doing it either way. Ryan2845 (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I like the way the 2008 tournament page did it (0-1 teams not included in the chart but mentioned below it). ~EdGl (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about condensing the chart. However, it only makes sense to do that once conferences have gone 0–1, ~~so it may make sense to leave the full chart until after Friday's games.~~ —C.Fred (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the table as we go and pulling conferences below works fine by me. —C.Fred (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can the table headers by like this:

Conference - # of Bids - Record - PCT - 2ND -S16 - E8 - F4 - CG or

Conference - # of Bids - Record - PCT - 2ND -RSF - RF - NSF - NCG?

The table headers stretch out the table. –Howard the Duck 05:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SWAC

In the conference record section, if we're gonna give Morehead credit for winning the opening round we got to mention SWAC as going 0-1. I tried this but it seems I'm no longer able to work tables... Redwolf24 (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already covered: "The Big South, Big West, MVC, Southern, SWAC all went 0-1." —C.Fred (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 American

User:B said: "Don't assume the reader is a 2009 American". If the readers are not 2009 Americans, can we assume that they know that "North Carolina" is a basketball team that can win the national championship and that a president's comment is relevant to this article of an American college basketball tournament? :) Ucla90024 (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can assume that they read the rest of the article and have the context about North Carolina. More context may be useful if he's the first president to make picks this way. —C.Fred (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Records in bracket

I'm removing the records in the bracket, because they're not really necessary, and they exist in the list of qualified teams earlier in the page, so it's not as if any information is being removed from the page. More importantly, though, with some teams playing with long names, the presence of records causes some formatting nightmares. --fuzzy510 (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A disservice. Ucla90024 (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information is easily-enough accessed, Ucla. It's redundant and cumbersome to list in the bracket. —C.Fred (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should have been placed at least for the first round. To look up the record, one has to roll up the page and then if forgotten the region, one has to roll back down to get the region to hunt for the team to see what the record was. Number of steps. Ucla90024 (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree on the readding of the records but only for the 1st round. –Howard the Duck 16:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can go for the first round only also. How about putting the record in small text also? That will help with situations where long names win the first round and try to keep, e.g., "Western Kentucky (24-8)" from wrapping. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you test it if the smaller font size will help for those teams with long names? If it doesn't I'd rather keep them at normal size. –Howard the Duck 17:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I tested the small text and it worked well for every entry except for Western Kentucky. (If WKU was beaten yesterday I don't think there'll be a problem.) I'd suggest we use the small text. –Howard the Duck 17:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If WKU is the only team that is adversely affected, I don't think that's a big deal. Alternatively, I'd be in favor of listing them as "West. Kentucky" or something to get it to all fit on one line. --fuzzy510 (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd rather leave them as "Western Kentucky" since it'll wrap only once. –Howard the Duck 03:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would be helpful. Let's go Bruins. It's game time. Ucla90024 (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arenas in bracket

Can't we use this form instead: "Dayton, Ohio"? –Howard the Duck 04:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree - I was actually coming here to make that same discussion point. I'll flip them now, and if anybody has any serious concerns, we can change it back. --fuzzy510 (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we use the full state names? They won't wrap anyway, at least on my monitor (the resolution is pretty high anyway). –Howard the Duck 14:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well...we could, however, the 2008 article has the arena names, and I think that we should keep it consistent.Stlsportsfan2316 (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can always change 2008's. –Howard the Duck 03:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That, and 2008's is the exception, not the rule. 2007 and prior do not have the arena listed. --fuzzy510 (talk) 04:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So wait, arenas are listed at the bracket only at 2008 and 2009? I'd prefer my original proposal above, or using the state abbreviations; no one really remembers the arena but the city they played at in the long run. The arena name is listed elsewhere anyway. –Howard the Duck 04:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with leaving the arena names out. Boise, ID looks alot better than Taco Bell Arena, Boise, Idaho Chitown03 (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arena links are more useful than the city links. I personally like showing the arena names. Oren0 (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas how the official NCAA bracket displays this? Or do they don't? –Howard the Duck 15:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

summaries

Anyone want to do summaries like the 2008 article has.--Levineps (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Broadcasts

In Australia theres a broadcast on Channel ONE 58.6.84.91 (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Thanks. –Howard the Duck 04:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monday?

Any reason why the championship game is done on a weekday unlike most other sporting competitions (some are Saturday but most are Sundays). –Howard the Duck 05:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the success of Monday Night Football. Ucla90024 (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linescore tables

I have no objections to these being in the article, but in their current setup, they were being aligned with the wrong regional and were more confusing than anything else as a result. If we can hold off on adding them until we can figure how to make them look right, I think that'd be best. --fuzzy510 (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? I fixed the regional, that was an error on my part. I was going to expand the Elite 8 descriptions very soon. Chill, man. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~

NOVA NATION 00:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine, thanks. The fact, though, is that they're more confusing right now than helpful, because they line up with the wrong games. --fuzzy510 (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They used to. I fixed them. It was not hard. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~

NOVA NATION 00:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Language

Isn't "blew out" too subjective? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.251.17 (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]