Talk:2016 NCAA Division I baseball tournament

Orphaned references in 2016 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2016 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Super Regionals": From 2014 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament:  From 2015 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament:  

Reference named "CWS": From 1952 College World Series:  From 1953 College World Series:  From 2015 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament:  From 1949 NCAA Baseball Tournament:  From 1950 College World Series: </li> <li>From Texas Tech Red Raiders baseball: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Clarification of national seeds
There seems to be some confusion regarding the national seeds in the baseball tournament. National seeds are assigned by the NCAA before the tournament begins, and do not change when a national seed loses in any round of the tournament. As said at the top of the section of the College World Series bracket, "seeds listed . . . indicate national seeds only." In other words, when a national seed loses prior to reaching the College World Series (as Clemson did by losing their regional), there will be no seed number in the space of the College World Series bracket where the winner of that super regional would go (in the Clemson case, the winner of the now-Columbia Super Regional will go where the 7-seed would be in the bracket, but they would not have a seed). Having said that, there is no point in putting the national seeds in advanced stages of the tournament when there is no guarantee at this point that any national seed will make it to the College World Series. I hope this clarifies any confusion that anyone has. Benhen1997 19:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The benefit to seeing where the seeds would fall in the CWS bracket is seeing how the bracket will fill out no matter who wins the super regional. See: the confusion of where Arizona falls in the CWS bracket.
 * Ok. I've seen confusion with this method (see and see), but at this point who cares because the bracket will be set within the next 24 hours.  Benhen1997 01:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The confusion there was simply visual. I was following the 1-4 3-2 method that the regional brackets use higher on the same page, which is the convention followed by the NCAA.  I think it's odd that the brackets suddenly switch to a 1-4 2-3 scheme, but there is no difference when the number of seeds is fixed.205.142.232.18 (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Record by conference
Billcasey905, thanks for correcting one of 73.24.153.88 win–loss "Record" mistakes, "Colonial", however that was only one of several mistakes. Some were perhaps careless error, but reducing the number of previously specified losses, without near guaranteed certainty, may go beyond simple careless error.

Benhen1997, I appreciate the UTC time & date for in process entries, however that may require conversion for the specified game times, and if it is close to the ending time of a game, there could be some confusion over whether the results of that game are included. I felt that using and specifying a specific round of the tournament would be better. Adding the date was redundant but I felt it might eliminate the least hint of any confusion. Making changes at other times may create greater effort in double checking and is more likely to introduce errors.

I apologize if there was a better way for me to communicate this. I've done very little of this and have never run into a situation like this before. Thanks,Jay Jor (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Benhen1997, you just caught the "Big 12" error by 73.24.153.88, but missed the "SEC" and "Other" errors. I have 19–15 and 16–37, respectively.


 * "SEC"
 * Florida 5-1 LSU 3-3 MissSt 3-2 OleMiss 0-2 SCaro 4-3 TexA&M 4-2 Vanderb 0-2 =	19-15


 * "Other"
 * Bingham 0-2 Rho Isl 1-2 Stetson 0-2 Xavier 2-2 CoaCar 5-1 WriSt 2-2 Princ 0-2 Fairf 0-2 WMich	0-2 BetCook 0-2 DalBapt 3-2 NewMex 1-2 Bryant 0-2 SEMoSt 0-2 Navy 1-2 WCaro 1-2 AlaSt 0-2 OralRob 0-2 UtahVal 0-2 = 16-37 (Note: Taking Coastal Carolina out makes this 11-36)


 * There is one thing that hasn't been noted on the Record of Conference section. The record of conference section should have 0 after the Regional Finals take place. If a team from that section advances to the Super Regionals, then that conference gets pulled out of the section. This is done on the basketball, volleyball, soccer, and softball lists. In this case Big South Conference should get listed with it's one team. Additionally, you do it similar to a pyramid. The conferences with teams in the CWS get moved to the top while the ones without teams get moved down. To view what I'm saying, you can check out the 2016 NCAA Division I Softball Tournament page. You'll see the CAA listed separately from the other section because James Madison advanced to the Super Regionals. You'll also see how conferences get moved up (Big 12) or down (Pac-12) depending on how far their teams advance on the chart.Bigddan11 (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's nice and is certainly no problem. I was concerned about accuracy, and the effort it takes to regain accuracy once it is lost. It appeared that some might go in and only change team(s), or conference(s), that they favored and not change others that were earlier. It might have mostly just been me, but I felt I was losing the ability to understand what others were trying to do or might do later. There is always the possibility that a person changes for a game, someone comes in slightly later and changes for exactly the same game. Thanks, Jay Jor (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I only caught the few mistakes that I had time to see last night. I came in just now to go through the brackets and check records for accuracy, but I see that's being done/has been done now.  Benhen1997 21:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Same for me, I just saw one edit that I knew was incorrect, so I changed that back. Sorry I wasn't able to fix the others at the time, didn't realize that there were other issues.  Appreciate the revamp and all the work that went into it. Billcasey905 (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, I agree that "PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE..." does not belong in the article. I fully intend to remove it after the last update, after the last CWS game is complete. However, for the time it was visible in the article, there were no partial updates. I know that guarantees nothing, but it seemed to be a step in the right direction. Partial updates occurred earlier. Then, almost immediately after "PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE..." was not visible in the article, there was a partial update. If someone insists on it not being visible, I will acquiesce. There are few enough games now that regaining complete accuracy is relatively simple. But for future reference, it may not be so simple earlier in a tournament. It seems that some people get so excited that "their" team (or conference) has won, they can't resist updating for "their" team, never mind earlier games, never mind the other team in the same game, never mind changing the time stamp, etc. Jay Jor (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The five tildes work fine, except other people obviously make changes without reading any comments at the top of the table. Some people even make changes without reading Talk even though they know this section has been being discussed at Talk. I am very open to suggestions, but people keep making partial changes except when the comment has been visible in the article. I would not have put it in there and left it in there otherwise. See immediately above. Jay Jor (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, surprise. Someone(s) did a partial update(s) and did not change the timestamp. I am tired of dealing with it and someone who is not paying very close attention.Jay Jor (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
"The Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) set a conference record ... Arizona and UCSB advanced to Omaha and were forced to face each other in the third elimination game ..."

This was added 02:44, 22 June 2016, by Brea pdx.

Does anybody else have a problem with the Ariz and UCSB comment? The word "forced" seems judgemental, at best. If they had won and lost games slightly differently they could have avoided this game and even possibly met in a CWS semifinal game. If the wording were changed to "...and faced each other in..." then it would just be factual but what is the significance? It must be some regional consideration, since they are not in the same conf nor state. This year, 2016, TCU & Tex Tech, same conf & state, met in their first CWS game and could have easily met in a 2nd round elimination game, but, unlike Ariz, TCU did win their first 2nd round game; Fla & Fla St and Tex Tech & Tex A&M met in elimination games in Super Regionals; South Ala & Southern Miss met in an elimination game in a regional; etc.; etc. In 2015, Miami (FL) vs. Fla and LSU vs. TCU were 2nd round CWS elimination games, etc., etc., etc. Regionals do not entirely, but predominately have teams, that are geographically close but not in the same conf, likewise for Super Regionals if both teams end up being Regional 1 seeds, but as a rule not from the same conference. Beyond Regional 1 seeds, almost anything can happen. In 2011, Miss St and Fla, same conf and closer than Ariz and UCSB, met in a Super Regional. There are undoubtedly many, many more examples similar to this.Jay Jor (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)