Talk:2006 NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament

Qualifying Team-Separate Section
I think we should, this list by the time theres 65 teams will take up way too much space &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Levineps (talk • contribs) 16:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I cleaned up the section by removing the unnecessary description of every conference championship game. Most of the information was of "sports-journalism" quality - containing a great deal of unsourced speculation, sympathetic point of view, and other things that aren't really encyclopedic - not to mention that they had only a minor tangential relationship to the subject of the article. This should help with the length, but a table might be cleaner once we have the actual seedings this Sunday. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that we have the brackets for the full 64 teams, is the 'Qualifying teams' table with their conference and berth type needed? Should this be expanded? &mdash; Linnwood 00:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Historical Brackets
With March Madness heading into full swing, I'm looking to get entries on Wikipedia for every prior NCAA Tournament, 1939-2004. I've done some basic scripting work to make this happen. A sample page for the 1991 tournament is at User:Dantheox/NCAA. There's nothing special about 1991 -- creation of these pages is completely automated, so once a standard format is settled on, creating all 66 (?) tournament pages won't take very long. That being said, I'd love to get some feedback on the page. Suggestions have included doing a better job of linking to universities (not states or titles, like "Duke") and a better handling of the third-place games that were played until 1981. --Dantheox 10:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Because a Wikipedia bot can screw up the formatting of the original format of the brackets, I had to construct Template:16TeamBracket and Template:4TeamBracket at a moments notice. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, those templates aren't flexible enough to handle any NCAA tournament, since the championships have used various numbers of rounds and byes over the years. I'll look at the formatting behind your templates though, and see if I can cannibalize it. --Dantheox 18:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realize that. On my to-do list, I eventually would like to have a template for every single NCAA playoff format, every NFL playoffs format, every NHL and NBA format, etc. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, the formatting is roughly based off of Template:Quarter-2-groups and Template:Semi-2-groups that was used during the Ice hockey at the 2006 Winter Olympics. But I had been tinkering with it in my own sandbox for the past few weeks. I do not really care how elaborate these templates are. The only requirement should be that they should be placed in some sort of actual HTML/wiki table, instead of a psudo-one in which the cells are only seperated by tabs. That is why the bot screwed up the original format because everything was all seperated by only tabs. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Purposed Format for Listing Teams in Regionals
I've created these tables to list the seeding for the regionals. Please leave feedback! &mdash; Linnwood 22:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * For some reason the text is fillng between the tables. Anyone know how to fix this? &mdash; Linnwood 23:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would also suggest that everybody look at last year's tournament article and see what else could be improved, especially the bracket tables. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

cameron5dollars 05:17 P.M., March 11, 2006 (EST)
 * Can we do a bracket in addition or instead of it
 * Well I did this for the article on 2006 Big Ten Conference. But I fear with 64 teams it will be way too big, or so small that you have a hard time reading the text. &mdash; Linnwood 01:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You could make the bracket another page, and you could condense it in terms of size
 * I just added St. Joe's to the "automatic Bids"


 * I've removed the tables as they were screwing with the talk page formatting, and the brackets work better anyways &mdash; Linnwood 00:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd love to have a nice one page image without advertising on it to print out a clean bracket on one page. This could also get us room for locations for the first and second round games. Casey Rousseau 19:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I fixed the Regional Final set-up by chronoligal time (game times) and lower seed as the "visiting team". NoseNuggets 7:10 PM US EST Mar 25 2006.

32 team bracket
I tried to make a (general) 32 team bracket but am unable to get it to work properly. I'm pretty close to having it finished. I used the 16 team bracket and expanded it. If you would like to use it in the article you'll need to fix the errors (sorry).


 * See Talk:/32TeamBracket

JedG 23:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I will only look at it if somebody will definitely put it in a few articles. Otherwise, it will be a waste of time and might be nominated for deletion. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It would reduce the number of brackets needed in this article, and could be expanded to 64 so that you could get the entire tournament in one bracket 24.237.198.91 01:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The brackets are fine as is, since 32 teams are unlikely to fit on your average user's screen. The NCAA breaks the brackets down into 16-team chunks for us, so why not take advantage of this? --Dantheox 01:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You could still look at the individual regions AND see how the winners match up. I see it as an advantage 24.237.198.91 02:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Another problem: if we went to the 6-round bracket and removed the "final four" section, then the final four would be spread over several screens. Most newspapers and sports websites put one half of the draw on the left, and the other on the right. This way, the final four teams meet in the middle. If we could do that on this page, then it would be ideal, but horizontal space considerations preclude that. The brackets are already wide enough to fill some screens -- doubling the width would necessitate horizontal scrolling, which seems to be frowned upon on Wikipedia. --Dantheox 03:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Concerning horizontal space considerations, off the top of my head, Image use policy specifically says, "Larger images should generally be a maximum of 550 pixels wide, so that they can comfortably be displayed on 800x600 monitors." There is a couple of other guidelines about how content should fit comfortably on 800x600 monitors, but I cannot remember them right now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't thinks there's any use for a 32-team bracket in modern NCAA Tournament articles, since the tournament is 64/65 teams broken into 16-team regions. The way the article is now is fine. In a perfect world we'd to it like the newspapers do, but since we can't, breaking it up into regions, then the Final Four, (like many websites do) is fine. Kevin M Marshall 14:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've archived the attempted bracket off the main talk page, since it was making the page overly long, and a consensus seems to have been reached that this isn't something we need to do. --Dantheox 18:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Complaints
First off, St. Joe's did not get an auto bid. Second, UNC probably won't get a 1 seed, and if they do, we won't know until tonight at 6. (Unless whoever added it secretly works for the NCAA Tournament comittee, in which case we should post a spoiler warning, but that would spoil it for those who already saw it but this whole thing is completely unlikely) The point is, I don't know how to get rid of it, but could someone else please do so?

"Wiki" the brackets
Can we "wiki" the brackets, so they will reveal box scores, recaps, pics, etc &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Levineps (talk • contribs) 20:41, 12 March 2006. -No I think if theres a memorable game in early round though, someone will &mdash; Levineps
 * Do you plan to write box scores, recaps, pics, etc. for all 64 games of the tournament? That might be a little excessive for some Wikipedians. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please sign your comments with ~ &mdash; Linnwood 06:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that individual games merit a write-up of one or two sentences (maybe more later in the tournament) included on this page, but creating a page for every single game and putting up full box scores, recaps, etc., would be overkill. Kevin M Marshall 15:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article on last year's tournament, write-ups did not occur until the regional finals. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed that; but I don't see any reason why the early rounds should be mere listings of scores without any information about how the games themselves played out. Again, I don't think we need huge summaries of every game, but let me know if you think the one-sentence summaries I added for some of yesterday's games are appropriate or not. Kevin M Marshall 16:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wisconsin Milwaukee or Milwaukee?
In Wisconsin, we refer the the Panthers as UWM, not Wisconsin-Milwaukee or Milwaukee. I'm not sure what we should put for the tourney. Bruce Pearl always wanted them to be called Milwaukee, but what do you think? Cheesehead Fan 04:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Since 2005 the school has been actively marketing itself as "Milwaukee." Many locals still call it UWM, and ESPN/CBS still call the school "Wisconsin-Milwaukee." But the school has made an effort to drop the "Wisconsin" in promoting athletics. The new logo shows "MILWAUKEE PANTHERS" while making "University of Wisconsin" in very small print, and the athletics website even calls the team simply "Milwaukee Panthers" or just "Milwaukee" with out the UW part. (I am alumnus of UWM) &mdash; Linnwood 07:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't check the talk page first. It seems odd to de-emphasize the UW part of the name. It almost sounds like the Bucks are in the tourney. &mdash; Zaui (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Change often seems strange to some, especially when it's something thats remained unchanged for the majority (or all) of one's lifetime. I'm sure some people in Charlotte, NC, felt the same way you do after UNC-Charlotte decided to drop the UNC from their school's name for NCAA purposes, as Milwaukee has now done.


 * If you're a state of WI resident, another way of looking at it is that Milwaukee (the school) has now brought its NCAA name in-line with Wisconsin (the school). Both school's are officially named the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, but Madison has always chosen to use simply "Wisconsin" for NCAA purposes. Now Milwaukee does (in effect) the same thing, while still keeping "UWM" as its official abbreviation.


 * And as to what Cheesehead Fan touched on, as a current student at Milwaukee, I can assure you that after the phrase "UWM", "Milwaukee" has now become the most-used phrase by students, faculty, alumni, and area residents to identify the University. &mdash; 143.81.160.51 13:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Effects of the Pod System
Is there really a need to italicize teams that may "benefit" from the use of the pod system? That appears to be rather subjective and unnecessary. Perhaps that could be better put in another place, such as "Bracket Analysis" or something like that? 159.142.184.229 22:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently, it seems that another user reverted those edits. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it seems that is the case. I stand corrected. 159.142.184.229 15:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
Hey, can someone explain to me why a phrase like "a game for the ages" isn't neutral? I used that to describe the UCLA-Gonzaga game (I figured it's a game for the ages whether you're a Bruins fan or a Zags fan. . .or neither). I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the edit, but I'd like to know why someone might consider that not-so-neutral. Neilymon 15:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * How was it any different than any of the countless close games in the NCAA tournament in years past, especially some of those championship games (as opposed to merely second round games) in the early 1980s that were close all the way through? Wahkeenah 15:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Final Four Preview
Can we do one similar to the Super Bowl XL preview before the games

Good Article Nomination Review
I think the title should be "2006 NCAA men's Division I basketball tournament"; I realize every other tourny article like this one is capitalized like this one, but I don't think it's correct. Also, there should be no wikilink in the bolded use of the article title. All the dates should be wikified, but some are but have the information cutoff in a non-appropriate manner (March 23 / 25 isn't appropriate). I also think this article is heavily overlinked, and things I would expect to be linked aren't (like NCAA, and Division I). The intro should be expanded a little bit and make sure to write the article like someone who isn't familiar with basketball can read it. See previous years for ideas. The tables under "Qualifying Teams" seem semi-redundant and perhaps all the information could be included elsewhere in text form. Many of the early game summaries are very brief. Even some of the later ones contain 2 or 3 sentences and I would expect them to be a little longer. I also would expect MANY more references. There is 1, for a 54kb article! I would also expect more information about coaches and links to school basketball team/season pages. I do think this isn't far from a GA, as many of my complaints (sans references) are easy to fix. You could ask for some help from the WikiProject College Basketball folks. -- MECU ≈ talk 21:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this a GA review? If so I assume it is meant to have placed the nomination on hold until the points raised are fixed. I'll edit the entry at WP:GAC to that effect. 4u1e 12:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Pics
I was wondering if you guys (whoever mainatins this page) have it clear of images for a reason? If it's due to a lack, I went through my shots and have 4 that aren't too bad. I have the dome decked out, the court empty and very few fans, the guys warming up (Florida and Mason), and one with them playing and the place packed. Let me know if there is interest in all/any of them. §hep Talk  06:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have images you can release under a free license, that would be great! Most articles like this are image-free because it is so rare that someone has free images - not because we don't want any. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome. I'll upload some later. §hep  Talk  01:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here you go: File:Final 4 Semis 1.jpg, File:Final 4 Semis 2.jpg, File:Final 4 Semis 3.jpg, File:Final 4 Nationals 1.jpg, File:Final 4 2006.jpg, and File:Final 4 2006 RCA Dome.jpg. Those were the best out of the bunch; sorry for the quality, I didn't have Wikipedia in mind when taking these (wasn't even a member). I think I have 2004 Final Four pics as well, I'll go hunt for them. If any of them need cleanup let me know what you'd like done. §hep  Talk  00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)