Talk:2010 NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament

Pix
If someone more skilled than I can do it, it might be cool to populate this article w/the pix of the top season scorers for the top four seeded teams.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hosts
Gonzaga is not hosting the first round site in Spokane, Washington State University is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanmarques (talk • contribs) 17:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, for the south regional, Rice University is hosting jointly with the University of Houston (only UH is listed at present). Could someone please correct this? Bobgill92 (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What source do you have for the hosting? —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Both Evanmarques and Bobgill92 are correct. Bband11th (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * According to this, Rice is not hosting.  Pats 1  T / C  21:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not according to the news release to the media from NCAA, which reads "Houston, TX, March 26 and 28; Reliant Stadium (72,721); University of Houston/Rice University, hosts", with the capacity listed. Bband11th (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, that's good.  Pats 1  T / C  21:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Map
I offer that the colors on the map are not sufficiently different. I see gray for the 0-team states, plus some red states and green states, but the other two colors (one for 2-team states and another for 4+ team states) both appear black. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.77.146.71 (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
TimoDaniels (talk) This page is missing information that is present for the other (2009,2011, etc) tournament years. These other years have sections for 'Qualifying Teams', 'Listed by Region and Seeding', 'Bids by Conference'.

Please update the conference records in the block near the bottom of the page to show Duke's elite-eight win and increasing the ACC record from 6-5 to 7-5 and their winning percentage from 0.545 to 0.583. You mention the win in the summary text above but the conference records haven't been updated to match. Thanks.

BradStump (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Done Welcome and thanks. Celestra (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Red links
Is there some reason that all redlinks are being removed from the article instead of leaving them in to encourage article creation? matt91486 (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They should only be left to "encourage article creation" in cases where the articles would normally pass WP:BIO; most NCAA basketball players do not.  Pats 1  T / C  00:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Record as favorite/underdog?
I've removed two columns added to the record by conference today covering records as favorite and underdog. I've done it for a couple of reasons: Is there a reason why this should be restored? —C.Fred (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is appears to be trivia beyond what's reasonable to the scope of the article.
 * 2) It appears to be inconsistent, as some conferences were not identified as favorites/underdogs in any of their games.
 * 3) It borders on original research, since an underdog was assigned to a game between two #5 seeds.


 * No. Bband11th (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. I think it is helpful if it is restored and completed: (1) the article already devotes a significant amount of space relating to conference vs. conference (including separate columns for how many teams make it to the rounds of 16, 8, 4 etc.), indicating this subtopic is of interest, but not showing whether a team was a favorite or an underdog seems to leave the "conference vs conference" conversation rather incomplete, e.g. the point seems to be to show which conferences performed well and which didn't (i.e. which were strong this year and which weren't), but record alone doesn't tell a very complete story, e.g. a 4-4 record by conference A when all 4 victories came as favorites is much different than a 4-4 record by conference B with all 4 victories as underdogs (particularly since some conferences are almost guaranteed to compile a decent record every year because they consistently receive high seeds, so the current chart implies those conferences are strong conferences when reality may be that they merely receive higher seeds); and (2) so long as the information is accurate and complete, it doesn't take up any additional space (just more columns side-by-side) and is at least as valuable as separate columns on round of 16, 8, 4 teams. J.Remo 23:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, agree that it is outside the scope and borderline original research. Ryan2845 (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)