Talk:2007 FIBA Americas Championship

[Untitled]
Any television coverage announcements? Kendanielone 19:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Score in Canada, I think… —MC 19:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You people can add it at the templates (just make sure the TV coverage are for competing nations in that game only) -- Howard  the   Duck  15:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Qualification
Are we positive about the information being conveyed in the "Qualification" section? Political geography 101: Mexico is part of the North American subcontinent, not Central America (not to be confused with Latin America, which is a non-geographical subdivision that does include Mexico). That being said, it is entirely possible that as far as FIBA tournaments are concerned, Mexico plays in the Central America region. I don't know, but if FIBA follows the standard subcontinental divisions, what we are stating there would be simply incorrect. Redux 14:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See the FIBA Americas website, They group Mexico under "Central America;" only USA and Canada are at North America. -- Howard  the   Duck  06:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's also not correct to say that it is "political geography 101" that Mexico is part of the North[ern] America subcontinent. There is widespread disagreement on this front, and although the convention in the USA is to reckon Mexico as part of North[ern] America subcontinent, the United Nations (for example) does not so consider it in its geoscheme. 76.10.24.245 05:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is indeed a very basic fact. Geoschemes are not necessarily a reliable source for this.  More often than not, they might reflect new, but far from being adopted, theories aimed at geographic "redistribution" based on (sometimes) geographic considerations and (more commonly) extra-geographic factors.  A common example is the inclusion/exclusion of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia of the European continent.  There's a widespread claim that an extra-geographic criterion, namely that of cultural affinities, was used to include the three in Europe, when geographically they would not be in Europe.  Regardless of that, if you write in an essay that those are Asian countries, you'd get it wrong.  In the case of Mexico, all of the reliable sources will show that that country is in North America, including the highly-regarded, and usually preferred source on Wikipedia, the CIA factbook (google cache to simplify: look for the green-marked "north america" cue) &mdash; which is why our article states presently that Mexico is in North America.  Actually changing that would need to be done on a more complex level than theorizing in a book, possibly by the International Geographical Union.  I'm not aware of any serious movement aimed at removing Mexico from North America and placing it in Central America.  Redux 04:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe because Mexico is a part of Latin America that's why FIBA Americas grouped them with Central America? Or to provide Canada and the USA 2 automatic berths in this tournament... Anyway, here is a map of the world splintered into subregions as defined with UN, but FIBA doesn't always divide the way the UN does. -- Howard  the   Duck  08:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We need to remember: the UN is primarily a political entity, and this kind of grouping might have been compiled in order to serve as a parameter for UN actions globe-wide. Looking at the map, it is apparent that "shifting" Mexico from North America to Central America is not the only change made by this particular geoscheme in the standard continental subdivisions in the world: in Asia, a portion of countries that are part of Central Asia have been "colored" into Southern Asia (Iran, Afghanistan). About what actually concerns this article, FIBA is not the first sport-governing entity to overlook standard geographic locations in its divisions.  The most notable example I can think of comes from FIFA, where two South American Countries, Guyana and Suriname, play in the CONCACAF (Central America and Caribbean) zone, instead of the CONMEBOL (South America).  Those two do have a coastline in the Caribbean, but then again so does Venezuela, which plays in the COMENBOL, because, well, it is in South America. I wouldn't say that FIBA was looking to benefit the US and Canada particularly, especially since, if memory serves me well (and correct me if I'm wrong), the entity has been accused in the past of being Euro-centric, but not US-centric (on the contrary, actually).  Redux 13:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually FIBA has made it sure that the U.S. qualifies to the world tourneys no matter what (hence the wildcard tournament). However, I think FIBA uses the cultural factor, since I'd imagine the Mexicans have more in common than Panamanians than Canadians and Americans. While the three Guiana South American countries are more culturally a part of the Caribbean (I think Suriname is a part of the West Indian cricket team), and so forth. Even the Aussie soccer team is in Asia rather than Oceania. -- Howard  the   Duck  13:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and that is probably a "legacy" from times when Basketball was first organized, or has FIBA ever redefined its zones? Australia's playing in the Asia group in the case of FIFA was a well-known political arrangement. The Australians got tired of playing in a qualifying tournament (that of Oceania) that actually didn't (and doesn't) have a berth of its own in the World Cup. They had to win their own Qualifying and then still play a South American country for the berth. And a nitpicking ;): there are indeed three Guyanas, but technically just 2 countries: the French Guyana is not independent, and doesn't appear separate from France in any instance I'm aware of (not even the Pan-Am Games, where France can't participate). Redux 13:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Boo the nitpicking :p French Guiana isn't a part of FIBA. I dunno when FIBA started these zones (the Asian zone started on 1960, but Asian teams started participating in the 1936 Olympics). Even North and South America are combined; FIFA doesn't divide them. -- Howard  the   Duck  13:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Point for Loss?
Is there a point for a loss? I am confused on the point system, many others may be too. It should be clarified on the article. Sportyguy03 01:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically, its 2 points for a win and 1 point for a loss. See Group tournament ranking system. Also, it shouldn't be difference but average. And the primary ranking for FIBA tourneys is the game between the tied teams (this will come in handy at the end of the prelims). -- Howard  the   Duck  06:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The point for a loss is reasonably absurd, although as long as they're going to use these points, we ought to order by points instead of winning percentage. The only conceivable reason for the points is you get 0 points for a loss by forfeit, but I am not familiar with any other situations where a league/governing body actually creates a pervasive standings method to account for the relatively rare situation where a team forfeits. As for showing goal average, I tend to think that differential is a more helpful column in the standings generally, and that we ought only to put on another column for goal average if a tiebreaker actually comes down to that. 76.10.24.245 00:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually if you'd ask me, I'll remove the PF, PA and Diff. since they really don't count, unless all teams are tied. Also, losses via forfeit happen not as rarely as you might expect, India forfeited their games at the Asian Games. -- Howard  the   Duck  12:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out; I did not follow the Asian Games and was not aware of that. The only situation I could recall where it would come into play was when one of the teams (Lithuania, perhaps?) was having difficulties getting to the Women's World Basketball Championship last year, and despite the fact that the team met the definition of having forfeited the game, FIBA credited them with a default instead of a forfeit.
 * Even so, it seems curious to me to have this points system in place for forfeits when there are other ways to handle it without producing standings that are more or less useless; at one point yesterday, the team with the worst record in Group A was in 1st place (1-2, 4 points), while Argentina (1-0, 2 points) was in last place. It seems kind of silly to me and I understand why people always seem to question what's going on when they drop by one of these FIBA article pages.
 * I see your point regarding PF, PA and Diff. The reason I would keep them is that they are simply more useful statistics. It escapes me why FIBA uses goal average as a tiebreaker; in sports, margin of victory is always more important than ratio (it is, I think, without question that 6-3 is a much closer game than 75-40, the ratios notwithstanding). Since goal average is a statistic that doesn't do much to help the viewer discern the relative strengths of the teams, it is relatively unpopular (in my experience) to display in tables like this. 76.10.24.245 23:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think goal average has an effect when the points scored is higher. Nevertheless, even if for example, Team A has a goal average of 1.01, while Team B has a goal average of 0.99, if Team B has beaten Team A, then Team A has the higher ranking. -- Howard  the   Duck  14:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the standing will sort out nicely at the end of the prelims when everyone has the same number of games played. -- Howard  the   Duck  14:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Squads
Can anyone do the squads article? For example: These are the team rosters of the 10 teams participating in the FIBA Americas Championship 2007.

-- Howard  the   Duck  08:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Virgin Islands
If I am not mistaken, the Virgin Islands team in this tournament is the U.S. Virgin Islands. It is not a unified team representing both the U.S. and British Virgin Islands, correct? If so, is there a way we can make "U.S." appear before the name? I don't know how to do it since it appears to be some kind of pre-set icon. 76.10.24.245 18:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * FIBA calls them simply as "Virgin Islands," the UK ones are the "British Virgin Islands." -- Howard  the   Duck  03:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not just FIBA. In our articles on the Olympics, they appear as just "Virgin Islands" as well.  Also similarly, the British Virgin Islands do not appear in the participating countries list.  They did take part in the 2007 Pan-Am Games though, but those are governed by ODEPA.  It may be that in most instances the British Virgin Islands are not permitted to participate separate from the UK &mdash; noticing that in the case of the Pan-Am Games, the UK does not participate, which may be what makes it possible for the British Virgin Islands to appear separately.  In the case of Basketball, however, the UK plays in the European Zone, so there might be some kind of political hurdle for the British Islands to play separately.  Does anyone know if they even played in tournaments that served as qualifiers for this event?  If they did, then it could indeed be a problem, since not only is the icon inaccurate, but it also provides a link that is not ideal &mdash; it is red right now, but it is pointing to "Virgin Islands national basketball team", whereas if the British Islands also have a national Basketball team, we would need to make the link more specific, to "US Virgin Islands...".  That would need to be done by editing the template though, and not by editing this particular article.  Redux 13:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually the British Virgin Islands do participate separately in the Olympics. (see British Virgin Islands at the 2004 Summer Olympics) —MC 00:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The British Virgin Islands is a full FIBA member. I don't know if they did participate in FIBA-sanctioned tourneys, maybe basketball tourneys within the Caribbean. (Another comparison is South Korea/Republic of Korea, FIBA calls them simply as "Korea," while North/DPR of Korea is "DPR of Korea".) -- Howard  the   Duck  13:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Humm, then it would indeed be a good idea to alter, if anything, the link being given in the icon, to "US Virgin Islands national basketball team". As for the link's and the icon's appearance, if FIBA calls the US Virgin Islands just "Virgin Islands" and the British Virgin Islands ...err... "British Virgin Islands", then that's how we ought to show it as well.  Redux 13:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I dunno about that since at all times, what appears on the screen must have the same link. So if FIBA calls the American half of the Virgin Islands as "Virgin Islands", we must call them as such. -- Howard  the   Duck  13:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. That's what I said, but in referrence to the articles on FIBA-sanctioned events, such as this one. I mentioned we should alter the title of the link to the [future] article on the US Virgin Islands' national basketball team. Right now, the icon provides a link to "Virgin Islands national basketball team"; I suggested we amend it so that it will provide a link to "US Virgin Islands national...". That notwithstanding, however, and also as I mentioned, the appearance of the icon should be made to remain just "Virgin Islands" (through the miracle of piping), because that's the nomenclature that FIBA uses. It is interesting for this future article to be called "US Virgin Islands national..." for the sake of disambiguation if nothing else, since ideally we should have another article on the British Virgin Islands' national basketball team, being that, as you mentioned, they are full members of FIBA. Redux 18:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's also possible that the FIBA website only says "Virgin Islands" because they're the only Virgin Islands grouping with a team at the tournament, or perhaps they are sloppy, or perhaps it's a mistake (it doesn't take long reading FIBA's English-language materials to see that they don't sound like they were drafted by a native English speaker, at least to me). If the team that is here is really the U.S. Virgin Islands, I see no reason not to make the link read that as well, since it is more informative and also happens to be correct. You raise an interesting point though, which is: how did the Virgin Islands qualify for this event? Indeed, how did any of the teams? Canada and North America qualified automatically, but a review of the FIBA Americas website did not make it clear to me what the precise structure of the sub-zonal tournaments was leading up to this point. I get the impression there was a South American event, and some sort of Central American event and a Caribbean event, but I also got the impression there was some kind of combined Central/Caribbean event as well. Insight into how the U.S. Virgin Islands qualified may also provide insight into what to do with this question. 35.10.246.164 19:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know what to do. FIFA uses Korea Republic for South Korea, Korea DPR for the North Korea, Congo DR for the country formerly known as Zaire and Republic of Ireland for Ireland south of the NI border. On the other hand, FIBA uses "USA" for United States, DR of Congo (simplified as DR Congo here in Wikipedia), Korea for South Korea and DPR of Korea (simplified as DPR Korea here). I'd say we'd use what FIBA calls them. -- Howard  the   Duck  00:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * FIFA also uses "USA" for United States… I agree to use whatever they are called by FIBA. —MC 01:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to turn this into a row and I'm not going to voice a strong objection. I would say, though, that I see no substantive content to the labels that FIBA may-or-may-not have assigned the teams. There are no issues of trademarks or branding or other officialdom that correspond with (say) expressing PGA TOUR in all-caps. They are just countries that are sending national teams to the tournament. The name of the country/jurisdiction is the only thing that seems particularly relevant to me, because whatever FIBA (or FIFA or FINA or FIVA) chooses to call a country internally, the country's name is the country's name, and the team represents the country, not a member "club" of FIBA that is closely associated with that country. There is room for latitude here; USA is just as good as United States of America, just as Mexico is just as good as United Mexican States (a counterexample would be the obvious but common mistake of equating the United Kingdom with Great Britain or (shudder) "England"). It is possible that, at the margin, there may be some substantive content to the label chosen (e.g., "Chinese Taipei" in some circles, "Taiwan" in others, depending on one's brand of political correctness), but I don't see how that's the case here at all. The label used by FIBA is not sufficiently informative, which is why we've been having this discussion in the first place: it started when I asked if this squad was a unified team that purported to represent the entire Virgin Islands, or only the U.S. Virgin Islands (in reality, it's my understanding almost all of the players on the team substantially consider themselves as being from New York). I see no issue with bucking whatever label FIBA may have chosen (if they actually affirmatively chose it at all) when we would only add more information; if it really becomes an issue, we could put it in parentheses, as is the practice in many cases with a newspaper whose town does not appear in the title. E.g., (U.S.) Virgin Islands, as compared to The (Toledo) Blade newspaper. 76.10.24.245 02:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * IMHO, in FIBA-related tournaments, we call them as what FIBA calls them. That's why Template:Country data has fields for optional names such as this. Or else, you may was well petition WP:FOOTBALL to call "Korea Republic" to "South Korea" or "Republic of Ireland" simply as "Ireland." There's also a flag and dab notices if ever an article is created so there's no confusion. (In a related issue, the IOC calls the U.S. Virgin Islands also as "Virgin Islands", since FIBA follows IOC naming conventions, except for FIBA countries which aren't IOC members) -- Howard  the   Duck  03:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The only cases where Wikipedia deviates from IOC/FIBA/FIFA standards is when the official IOC/FIBA/FIFA name is long and there's no need for a long name since they're the only ones using that, like "Iran" instead of "Islamic Republic of Iran" or "IR Iran". -- Howard  the   Duck  06:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Howard. —MC 15:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See also the CIA World Factbook entries for the U.S. Virgin Islands and British Virgin Islands —MC 15:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Results carried forward
The quarterfinal standings should not include results vs. teams that did not reach the quarterfinal stage. Thus Canada should be listed as carrying forward 1 win and 2 losses for 4 points. Joel225sp 00:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. -- Howard  the   Duck  03:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

4-way tiebreaker?
So, just looked at the schedule now and realized if the US beats Uruguay, Uruguay beats Brazil, and Puerto Rico beats Canada there would be a 4-way tie (at a 3-4 record) for places 3-6. Since 3-4 get in the Semis and 5 gets a wild-card, how this tie is broken is absolutely critical.

Anyone have any idea how this would work? (Would it be h2h against all other tied teams first. What would happen if 2 are 2-1 against the others while 2 are 1-2...how would places 3/4 and 5/6 be sorted out?)

I should note that out of the 3 (as of now) current requirements for this to happen, only Uruguay over Brazil would really be considered an upset. So this is quite a possible scenario. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.111.6 (talk) 02:55, August 30, 2007 (UTC)


 * These are the current standings among the tied teams:
 * {|class=wikitable

!Team !! Pts. !! W !! L !! PF !! PA !! Avg.
 * || 3 || 1 || 1 || 176 || 157 || 1.121
 * || 3 || 1 || 1 || 162 || 183 || 0.994
 * || 3 || 1 || 1 || 170 || 174 || 0.977
 * || 3 || 1 || 1 || 150 || 164 || 0.915
 * }
 * If they're all at 3-4, it'll be
 * {|class=wikitable
 * || 3 || 1 || 1 || 150 || 164 || 0.915
 * }
 * If they're all at 3-4, it'll be
 * {|class=wikitable

!Team !! Pts. !! W !! L !! H2H
 * -bgcolor=#98fc98
 * || 5 || 2 || 1 || 82-79
 * -bgcolor=#98fc98
 * || 5 || 2 || 1 || 79-82
 * -bgcolor=yellow
 * || 4 || 1 || 2 || 75-67
 * || 4 || 1 || 2 || 67-75
 * }
 * In other words, whoever wins on their games tomorrow will advance. -- Howard  the   Duck  07:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In other words, whoever wins on their games tomorrow will advance. -- Howard  the   Duck  07:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

According to Classification of Teams on page 71 of the FIBA rulebook, after the four-way tie is broken by the four-way head-to-head, then the two-way tiebreakers would be used to finish breaking the remaining ties. So Uruguay would be 3rd, Puerto Rico 4th, Brazil 5th and Canada 6th. And thus Brazil is guaranteed at least a spot in the wildcard tournament. Joel225sp 10:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove PF, PA, Diff?
Since they're virtually worthless anyway? (Except for a rare tie of all teams) -- Howard  the   Duck  03:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You can if you like, but I think their intrinsic usefulness as a general measure of the teams' relative abilities is evidenced by the FIBA website; its extended standings indicate points scored and differential, but not goal average. See http://www.2007lasvegas.fibaamericas.com/pages/eng/fe/07/fibaAmer/men/scheResu/grouStan/p/openNodeIDs/1421/roundID/3965/selNodeID/1421/fe_scheResu_grouStan.html. 76.10.24.245 03:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I've noticed that (they seem to do that all FIBA websites), but it's really useless. Maybe it's just a way for the Americans to show how good their team is :p Although it is interesting to point out that the tiebreakers actually parallel these 3 stats (see Group A for example). -- Howard  the   Duck  03:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Although there are some instances when these three stats aren't parallel: for example, on this very article, despite Uruguay's lower points difference, they still rank higher than Mexico since they've beaten them on the prelims, and Taiwan ranked higher than in the 1954 FIBA World Championship despite having the worst PD among them, Uruguay and Canada since they had a better goal average on the games among those 3 teams. -- Howard  the   Duck  04:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I interpret it as a concession to the notion that in a sports contest, margin matters more than ratio, FIBA's choice of tiebreakers notwithstanding. 76.10.24.245 05:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But at the end of the day, FIBA classifies its teams accdg. to their official rules, not at the ones given at the website, especially in this tourney where there are no classification games. How about USVI and Panama? How would tie be broken? They're both 0-4. Via average or difference? -- Howard  the   Duck  05:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And, at the end of the day, FIBA's own website seems to feature point differential in the actual display, while calculating goal average "behind the scenes" and deploying it when necessary. 76.10.24.245 05:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is also like the T, PF and PA stats used by the NFL, always displayed but never used. -- Howard  the   Duck  08:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Related question: should we just omit the tiebreakers when they're not really needed? (like in group B) -- Howard  the   Duck  11:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say yes. I woke up this morning to see they were added, and I'm unclear why that would be so. In addition, I don't think we need the coloring to say a team was eliminated. It is unnecessary to have a color code for everything, and it isn't even entirely accurate, since Canada can't be both pinkish red and yellow. 76.10.24.245 14:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was waiting for your answer and I would've asked about the pink stuff, but since you've said it, I'm contemplating of removing both the ties and the pinks. -- Howard  the   Duck  15:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * On a related note, can you (or anyone) come up with a shorter header instead of "First Tiebreaker Record in Games Against Tied Teams"? Does anyone know how FIBA shortens it? -- Howard  the   Duck  15:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * FIBA rule D.1.1: "If there are two teams in the classification with equal points, the result(s) of the game(s) between the two teams involved will be used to determine the placings." Similarly, D.1.3: "If more than two teams are equal in the placing, a second classification will be established, taking into account only the results of the games between the teams that are tied." This seems like a very awkward way of saying that what is typically referred to in USA as a head-to-head tiebreaker will be the first one used. The current wording is the best thing I can think of but I am open to other contributions. You'll note I added a tiebreaker column to the QFs, since it is relevant there. 76.10.24.245 15:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you added "eliminated" next to Canada's color code. I foresaw that some may put that pinkish color for eliminated teams and I thought the little text I added, saying the 5th place team did not continue competing for the Americas Championship, would be enough to obviate the need for that. I think if you eliminate the pinkish color, there is no need to keep the "eliminated" tag on the yellow color code. I just think it is cumbersome to spell everything out multiple times. 76.10.24.245 15:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for someone else to remove it, or comment here on what to do. The two of us can't control what happens in the article, I'd rather wait for someone else to point out that we won't need the pinks. As for shortened labels, how about like this:
 * {|class=wikitable

!rowspan=2|Team !!rowspan=2| Pts. !!rowspan=2|W !!rowspan=2|L !!rowspan=2| PCT !!rowspan=2|PF !!rowspan=2|PA !!rowspan=2|Diff !!colspan=2| Tie !HTH !! Avg.
 * }
 * It is interesting to add that FIBA doesn't recognize PCT. -- Howard  the   Duck  15:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I only maintained PCT because it was already here. I think it is totally unnecessary. I've never heard of such a thing in a sport with a standings points system (although FIBA's standings point system can produce confusing results). I have no problem eliminating it if you don't. I will go through and eliminate the pink tags myself if need be, as they are completely superfluous. Your proposal as to tiebreakers seems fine to me. I didn't know whether "head to head" was enough of an Americanism to make it inappropriate for an article that also needs to be relevant to both continents. 76.10.24.245 16:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I myself use "head-to-head", and I'm not American. And perhaps the Euros do too... Also, FIBA Africa Championship 2007 omits the PCT but adds the number of games played ("GP" for U.S. Americans and "Pld" for everyone else), FIBA Asia Championship 2007 has PCT but no tiebreakers, and EuroBasket 2007 more or less is the same with the Americas 2007 article.
 * If you'd ask me, I'd rather have standardization in these articles, plus the Olympics article, too. -- Howard  the   Duck  16:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no need (at all) for a games played column. PCT is defensible but I think unnecessary, given that the teams are ordered by the points. Games Played has only marginal value in any context, and the only place I can see it being at all helpful is in the midst of the regular season of a league that plays many games (e.g., NBA, NHL, MLB). When it's only 5 or 7 or whatever games, it's completely unnecessary. If you think head-to-head is typically used, then I have no problem with it. It's the usage that seems most natural to me. 76.10.24.245 17:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Scoring by quarter?
Apologies to whomever provided the quarter-by-quarter scoring details, but I find the extra sets of numbers below the final game score rather eye-distracting, not to mention superfluous (at least for this level of competition). If there was a vote, I'd vote to get rid of the quarter-by-quarter scores. Mwlin1 18:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. It adds very little, IMO. 76.10.24.245 19:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'd say keep. Scoring by quarter is like the equivalent of the goals scored on soccer. Keep off the scoring leaders though. Lets just add them at the semis. -- Howard  the   Duck  00:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's comparable to goals scored in soccer because in soccer, the paucity of scoring makes each goal a significant game event. In basketball, they're constantly pouring in a few more. 68.251.174.15 02:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The paucity of soccer scoring is true, so the quarter scoring is important, since they're only 4 figures. It's also an idea how the game went (like if a team led all the way, if a team made a run to catch up/pull away, etc.) since it seems no one would give game summaries. -- Howard  the   Duck  03:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a succinct definition for what FIBA Americas Championship 2007 is at the top, for clueless folks like me. I arrived from an outside link, scanned the article, but didn't see any definition/description. Even an early see-this=page link to the FIBA Americas Championship page would be helpful (I got there by deleting 2007 from the URL, but many people wouldn't do that). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.20.237.123 (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FIBAAmericas2007Logo.gif
Image:FIBAAmericas2007Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)