First attempt went nowhere. I'll try again. Four games being played before Thursday. Call them what you want, play in games is term most on tv are using, preliminary games, no name games, loser games. My question is why don't they make all the lowest seeds play the extra games. Some of the games are tournament winners, some are not. Point is you have #11 seeds knocking one or the other out of the tournament and #16 seeds knocking one or the other out of the tournament. Makes no sense. RPI's of let say 45 are left out but conf winners with an RPI of 100 are in. If they add 4 more teams you pretty much cover the bubble teams left out, that is RPI teams higher in that no man's land of 40-64 like Colorado State or Temple. But have the worst seeds play early #15 vs #18 and #16 vs #17 and not #11 seeds who are clearly ranked higher. Makes no sense. And I'll continue to call them play in cause most everyone on tv calls them play in and the brackets don't have to be filled in until after these games are played. And yes they still made the tournament. By the way, years ago not all conf winners were automatically in, simply because RPI sucked. But now we have to be politically correct. If that were truly the case, only conf winners should be left now so we should be down to 32 teams already. Not!
play in games #2
- Thread starter farmer awhile
- Start date
Missed both picks last night and my wife had them both correct, bummer. Who would have figure Manhattan would win with a losing record?
I assume they do this mostly because it makes them more appealing for viewings when two of the games involve the last four at large teams selected (generally major conference teams or at least high mid-majors).
I believe this came about as a new conference formed. We were at a field of 65, which consisted of 31 automatics and 34 at larges. A 32nd conference was formed, which required another automatic bid. The major conferences would never go along with losing at large bids. The NCAA decided instead to go to 32 at larges and 36 automatics for a 68 team tournament, with the arrangement that two of the 1st round games would involve the last four automatics and the other two would involve the last four at larges.
I believe this came about as a new conference formed. We were at a field of 65, which consisted of 31 automatics and 34 at larges. A 32nd conference was formed, which required another automatic bid. The major conferences would never go along with losing at large bids. The NCAA decided instead to go to 32 at larges and 36 automatics for a 68 team tournament, with the arrangement that two of the 1st round games would involve the last four automatics and the other two would involve the last four at larges.
Expanding the field just moves the bubble. It doesn't eliminate it. We'd be having a similar conversation about teams being left out no matter how many you add, unless automatic qualification was removed.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
The #11 seeds aren't just an arbitrary choice- they're the last at-large qualifiers. If you're relegating even lower seeds to play-in games, you're punishing automatic qualifiers from smaller conferences.
I like the system as it stands: the field is expanded to allow for more entries, but the last few at-large qualifiers have to prove their worth to join the field. This gives more teams a chance while not diluting the tournament too much for automatic qualifiers or truly worthy at-large bids.
As for the two #16-#16 playin games, I also do not have a problem with this. As you could see from last night, these seeds are the weakest entries that often are surprise upsets in the conference tourneys and sometimes have losing records (Cal Poly last year and Hampton this year, both winners).
For me, it's just a tough argument to expand the field and still make the tournament as meaningful game-by-game as it has been. This seems like the best compromise.
I like the system as it stands: the field is expanded to allow for more entries, but the last few at-large qualifiers have to prove their worth to join the field. This gives more teams a chance while not diluting the tournament too much for automatic qualifiers or truly worthy at-large bids.
As for the two #16-#16 playin games, I also do not have a problem with this. As you could see from last night, these seeds are the weakest entries that often are surprise upsets in the conference tourneys and sometimes have losing records (Cal Poly last year and Hampton this year, both winners).
For me, it's just a tough argument to expand the field and still make the tournament as meaningful game-by-game as it has been. This seems like the best compromise.
It is in the brackets i'm in too. I'm actually surprised its not in all of them. Isnt there usually a team every year that wins a play in game then wins a game or two in the field of 64? Some in my pool have BYU going to the Rd of 32 or Sweet 16 and they are out now. Doesnt make much sense to pick Ole Miss/BYU to beat Xavier, you should have to pick Ole Miss to beat Xavier and pick Ole Miss as far as you want not pick Ole Miss/BYU as far as you think they will go. To me thats just a stupid bracket.
I will add that I think its odd not all pools make you pick the play-in games. Like I said some in our pool had BYU in the Rd of 32 or one guy has them in the Sweet 16. In other pools that don't make you pick between Ole Miss/BYU it rewards a person who thinks BYU is good enought to make the Rd of 32 or Sweet 16 when actually it is Ole Miss that makes it that far kind of like Tennessee last year. Some of my friends had Iowa in the Rd of 32 or Sweet 16 but didnt get docked any points because Tennessee made it that far.
Similar threads
