Talk:NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament bids by school

Italics?

Houston Baptist University and Seattle University have re-joined Division I Men's Basketball, but aren't yet eligible for the NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament. Since thoser two teams are back at the Division I level, is it appropriate to un-italize (sic) them fon this list, or should we wait until they are eligible? Qazox (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Northern Colorado is a DI school

They play in the Big Sky Conference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.140.45 (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Kentucky has 52 official NCAA appearances

Kentucky has 52 official NCAA appearances, not 51. This total of 52 does NOT count, I repeat, does NOT count the vacated 1988 appearance.

Here are Kentucky's 52 official NCAA appearances:

1942, 1945, 1948, 1949, 1951, 1952, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1961, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 = 52.

This information can be found in the 2013 NCAA Men's Basketball Records Book, in the 2013 NCAA Men's Basketball Final Four Records Book, in the 2013 University of Kentucky Men's Basketball Media Guide, at ESPN.com, at CBS.com, at Yahoo Sports.com, at UKathletics. com, and on the University of Kentucky Men's Basketball Wikipedia page.

Additional columns for # of appearances in rounds

An IP editor keeps adding several columns to the table in order to include the number of times each team has appeared in various rounds of the tournament (Sweet Sixteen, Elite Eight, Final Four, etc). I'd like to have a discussion here to try to come to some consensus before we include that information. The table here is the same one as used in NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament bids by school and conference for the conferences. To me it seems cleanest to keep the table as-is and I'm concerned the additional information dumps us into WP:NOTSTATSBOOK territory.

I've reverted the most recent round of edits back to the way the table has been and would ask that it stay that way until we reach some consensus. (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Your (false) claim of "An IP editor keeps adding ... the number of times each team has appeared in various rounds of the tournament" is not supported by history page showing Mkbngr included that data 5-18 December 2017, which incidentally is the same format as Titles numbers from 14 April 2013. The primary difference I made was in making that data (from 2013 & 2017 edits) sortable for readers and other editors. 99.127.236.195 (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Ncjon has repeatedly vandalized the page, removing end parentheses from state names, removing updates for many teams in the 2018, de-alphabetizing schools with the same number of bids, disabling sorting by number of appearances for a respective category, and more. I've reverted Ncjon's vandalism and restored the ability to sort by respective appearance and alphabetized schools of the same bid number.

Again, there is no "additional info" (per Ncjon's claim) rather additional sorting utility for existing info. The old table also listed number of appearances by a team in various rounds (in parentheses) but one could not sort by that, rather only the latest year. The greater utility is to be able to sort by that existing (and arguably more relevant) information as well, and for schools to be organized alphabetically within the same bid count. As explained in a prior edit, column names were edited to keep them from being overly wide compared to the data in the column which makes the table wider than it needs to be.

As for comparison NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament bids by school and conference, there are multiple tables there and utility is not consistent. One allows sorting by rank, others do not. Some list appearances (of interest and regular part of NCAA basketball tournament commentary), others do not. What is trivial for small data sets (e.g. 12 teams in a conference), becomes obstructive for larger ones (e.g. over 300 teams listed). While, the first car with electric start was in the minority, that by itself was no reason to revert it to the majority standard of hand cranking. If it were, we'd still drive Model T's (or precursors) and Wikipedia would remain in the Primordial soup.

If one looks at the history of the page, many similar improvements to organization and utility can be seen over the years, and no discussion was needed as the benefit was self-apparent to any reading the comments before vandalizing via blind reversion. 99.127.236.195 (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Had to revert WP:Vandalism again by Ncjon did at 00:45 on 7 March 2018. This time in addition to reverting and putting table out of order (note teams of same bid # no longer alphabetized, and sorting by S16/E8/F4... removed), Ncjon deleted the number of S16/E8/F4 appearances by teams, and without participating nor responding to points in Talk.‎ 99.127.236.195 (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

My edits are not WP:Vandalism no matter how much you want to call them that. I've twice restored the article to the format that it has had for the last 5+ years, while asking you to try to build consensus on the talk page for your proposed changes prior to instituting them. I've also asked other editors interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject College Basketball to weigh in here. I was waiting for them to have an opportunity to respond because I've already made my case for why I believe the additional columns and information are extraneous information. The number of appearances in various rounds are excessive and had only been in the article for a short period before you converted them into columns, which I believe reduces the usefulness of the table because of its size, and that the additional information is readily available elsewhere. Ncjon (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Broad Picture: A well-organized and easy to manipulate table is of value not only in itself, but for other Wiki pages and users who might reference data within, as well as refer to it as a model for improving tables elsewhere.
• Appearance Data (# of times): The # of Bids goes back to start of the page on 11 March 2007, and # of Titles back to 14 April 2013, so clearly how many times a team made the NCAA Tournament as well as won it have a history of notability on the page, but why cover only Alpha & Omega vs. Alpha-Omega given WP:tables are used for research, and other rounds are just as if not more notable than tournament Bids? Those gaps for other significant rounds (Sweet 16, Elite 8, Final 4, Finals) were filled in 5-18 December 2017.
• Last, Total, or Both?: Both 'totals' (Bids) and 'last' (year in tournament/round) have appeared 'ab initio' to present, so it's not a question of if the should appear IMHO, rather for which rounds. If a round (S16/E8/F4/F) is notable enough for one, it is for the other and common for broadcasts, fans, and even Wiki pages to note not only said totals, but also how they compare to other schools (e.g. "2nd most (S16/E8) appearances ... their #th Final Four").
• Utility and Organization: Table ordered by Bids (descending) from 2007 start, then on 11 March 2012 the table was "fixed... so that it's sortable " (note: Ncjon's first page edit followed 21hr later). Noting LTorB? above, the need for sortability by # in addition to Last (year) and School is evident. For reasons unknown, and until this month, the table lacked any order aside from Bids; now it is sub-sorted alphabetically by school (among those with same Bid #) which also indicates Bid # changes when the next school jumps back up alphabetically. Granted, some disorder will be encountered each spring due to tournament updates, but it easily rectified after it concludes (and 'tournament active' school names are reverted from bold face) until the next one nears. There is also a history of truncated column headers going back to 2007 to avoid excessive table width and whitespace due to a long header for entries only four digits long (i.e. year). It would be nice if Wiki allowed for shading columns so that Last and # for a given round could match, but the only method I presently know of would add significant bytes via 'style' entries for each respective table cell.
• Ncjon Changes: While Ncjon's interest in topic and page is clear based on edits and updates, so too a history of reverting notated edits without providing reason himself, even so far as employing a double-standard by directing others to use the Talk page first where he had no history of use (to be fair, nearly no one had to that point). Wiki encourages people to be bold (WP:BB WP:5P5) which fueled its growth, but reverting edits without good cause (reverting: row organizing, punctuation omissions, and or errant data which serves to 'obstruct or defeat the project's purpose' WP:VAN) is not defensible by claiming "keep the status quo" or "5+ years" (Appeal to Tradition, but countered by older versions) to good faith edits made upon the groundwork of numerous other editors as briefly covered above. 99.127.236.195 (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Why do this page and NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament bids by school and conference both need to exist? Bsuorangecrush (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a fair question, although it probably needs a separate discussion. Originally there was a single article that was presented the way this one appeared for most of its history. Back in 2007 someone reorganized the article by conference and then split off a new article - this one - keeping the old format for a total list of bids. I personally find this more useful than the "by conference" page, which has its own accuracy problem in the total bids by conference section. Ncjon (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure who is at fault, but can everyone stop screwing with the page? It was perfectly fine before the daily edit wars; clean and easy to use. The teams were sorted by number of bids and the farthest they advanced in any given year, in order. Now it's a mess.

Furthermore, I'm against listing the number of times a school has been to a round. This information is easily found by clicking on the school name. The table had been simple and useful prior to adding the additional info, which, I may remind you, is not noted in the title of the page.

The number of times a team has advanced to any given round just clutters the page. If we were having a formal vote, consider me an against vote. EnjoysButter (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, EnjoysButter. I understand how it feels when familiar things evolve; change seems to be the one Wiki constant. While the # times/round is "easily found" for some schools, it isn't for all. One could sort or compare between all the schools via their separate pages, just as one could hunt all the info for any given topic on their own, but isn't the point of an encyclopedic reference like Wiki that you don't have to? By contrast, brief survey shows it's easier to find the "Last" appearance (year) for a school, but rather than excluding years (e.g. 1951, 2018), I'm for keeping both types and for all named rounds for consistency and completeness rather than a patchwork. Nonetheless, totals have a track history dating back to the page's beginning, progressing from easier ones like Bids and Titles to the other rounds besides opening and close, so their usefulness along with being able to sort a consolidated reference appears well-established per page history.

If the visual layout ("clutter") is the concern, then perhaps it's best to explore how it could be better displayed rather than omitting or deleting data and editor contributions, improvement over confinement. Other contemporary college basketball tables have increased their quality during the same past decade. 99.127.236.195 (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a reasonable argument, and I'm not against change. I just hope you all agree to change the page for the better. EnjoysButter (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

EnjoysButter, your thoughts on this reformatted header design? BTW, if you've not tried it, sort by one column that has the same entry for multiple rows (e.g. Elite8-Last), then hold <shift> while clicking on another to sub-sort by it (e.g. Final4-#) here or on main page.

Bids by School		Most Recent		Sweet 16		Elite 8		Final 4		Finals		Champions
#	School	Bid	Win	Last	#	Last	#	Last	#	Last	#	Last	#
56	Kentucky This	2017	2017	2017	42	2017	37	2015	17	2014	12	2012	8
48	N. Carolina is	2017	2017	2017	33	2017	28	2017	20	2017	11	2017	6
46	Kansas just	2017	2017	2017	30	2017	23	2012	14	2012	9	2008	3
46	UCLA a demo.	2017	2017	2017	33	2008	21	2008	17	2006	12	1995	11

Thank you for giving it a look. 99.127.236.195 (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

One last thing I would say is that when a reader first opens the page, schools should be ordered by number of bids then how deep they've gone. There's no sense in sorting by bids and then school name because we already have a column to sort alphabetically. So that's one feature of the old format you may want to consider reverting back to. Maybe it's best to make that change after the tournament when the page sees much less traffic. EnjoysButter (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament bids by school and conference into NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament bids by school. The content on the bids by school & conference page largely duplicates the content here. We can simply add a current conference affiliation for each team in the main table and add a new section for conference totals, which would not make the article significantly longer. The existence of both pages is very confusing.Ha2772a (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ha2772a: FYI: There is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament bids by school and conference open.—Bagumba (talk) 09:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it looks clunky and makes it much more difficult to break down which conference a smaller school comes from. I have enjoyed the way this page broke each bid down by conference and school for 15 years now. There is absolutely no need to change this unless you are just bored and looking for something to do. Wikimace08 (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

We could consider adding a sortable conference column. At the AfD, some people objected to the conference grouping because the counts were misleading as it took the schools' historical bids and incorrectly attributed it to the current conference count. —Bagumba (talk) 04:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

2023

As of 7 March 2023, Editors have begun to add 2023 bids to the Most Recent column and bolding those names. Bolding for 2022 has been removed. David notMD (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)