Talk:2018 NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2018 NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

College Basketball High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject College Basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college basketball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College BasketballWikipedia:WikiProject College BasketballTemplate:WikiProject College Basketballcollege basketball articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

play-in games[edit]

I know the committee, in its infinite wisdom, says they aren't play-in games, but they are play-in games. Shouldn't we, as reasonable people who understand that winning a play-in game is not at all like winning a game in the real tournament, discount those wins, at least until the committee decides that money is not the primary consideration and reverts to the oh so elegant 64-team bracket (right after they eliminate the amateurism requirement, right)? Basically, I am contending that, whatever nonsense the committee chooses to promulgate, we should separate out those play-in wins so that the records indicated actually show wins in real, seed appropriate games. And yes, I know seeding is screwed up by the reliance on the RPI, but it is still better than showing a bunch of 16 seeds with even, 1-1 records after the ritual beat down in the real round one. (Still hoping one wins a real game eventually, but I don't like the records misleading folks about pretend tournament wins.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.212.46.50 (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're advocating for this article. I assume you're talking about the record by conference section which shows the Big South (Radford), for example, with a record of 1–1: a win in the First Four and a loss in the First Round. You'd prefer to see a tournament record of 0–1? If that's the case I think it's WP:OR to arbitrarily consider the first game a "pretend" win before the "real" First Round. Should we consider the bids those losing teams received as illegitimate, changing from a 68-team tourney to 64? If the NCAA considers it a tournament win (as I believe this proves), that's what the article should indicate. As for confusion, the table includes the columns for each round which shows that no Big South team made it to the round of 32. There's even a note below the table detailing that the records include the First Four games for specific conferences. I'd say it's pretty clear. Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK help[edit]

Can anyone help me get Template:Did you know nominations/Jordan Poole and Template:Did you know nominations/Zavier Simpson approved at T:TDYK for April 3 to run during the 2018 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship Game.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]