I am wondering why the four play in games are not all in the 16 seed bracket. I think the lowest seeds 61 thru 68 should play in. Obviously the bubble teams have better resumes then the winners of some of the minor conferences. They could expand to 72 teams and have 8 play in games for the 15 and 16 seeds playing the 17 and 18 seeds. That way there would be less complaining about those left out like Temple, Colorado State and a few others. Their RPI suggests they should be in the field and ahead of the minor conf.
play in games
- Thread starter farmer awhile
- Start date
They didn't want to penalize teams that won automatic bids. At least not 8 of them.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Its not a play in game.
First round game starts tonight. The premise is incorrect
Posted from Rivals Mobile
First round game starts tonight. The premise is incorrect
Posted from Rivals Mobile
For several years, the balance of the field was 31 automatics and 34 at larges. A few years ago, with the formation of a 32nd conference that required an automatic bid, the NCAA wasn't going to reduce the number of at large bids to balance the add of one automatic. They decided instead to add a couple more at large teams to get to 68, and generated more interest in those games by making 2 of the 4 games the last 4 at large teams.
The same way it's always been a play-in game when the field was 65 teams and 2 automatic qualifiers were vying for a lone 16 seed.
Ok? Are you just bored and looking for something stupid to argue about? Because I'm all for that since there is honestly no legit reason for anyone to strongly feel that calling these games play in gangs is somehow bad.
They've always been called a play in game, doesn't really matter if it's officially by the NCAA or by 99% of people who watch the sport. Life is full of meaningless crap that gets called something and it sticks, even if it doesn't make sense.
And I've always thought the "play in games" should never include an auto qualifier even when it was 65 teams. Makes no sense to not have it be the last at larges.
This post was edited on 3/17 11:35 AM by afsocker
I don't agree. The field is 64 teams so only the winner of the "play in" game is really part of the tournament. Either the field is greater than 64 or this is a playoff / play in game.
The NCAA says the field is 68 teams and there are no play in games. I'm going to have to go with them over some anonymous internet expert that has trouble reading.
A play in game is where the loser is not considered part of the tournament. That is not true with the First Four games. Thus, there are no play in games. Simply first round games, like every other round. Win and advance.
NCAA Tournament - 68 teams
Everyone knows that they aren't technically play in games. Everyone also knows that the only reason they aren't called play in games is due to the small school getting mad about having to win a game to make it into the tourney. Everything about them says play in game except for the fact that they are called play in games.
If people wish to remain ignorant and sound ignorant, they are free to call them play in games. This simply tells anyone who knows what a play in game actually is that the person referring to them as play in games is ignorant. Many, many ISU & UNI fans want to call them play in games because they have an agenda to put down any accomplishments of Iowa. That's fine. Adults will continue to understand the meaning of words and use them properly.
Iowa basketball has 24 NCAA tournament appearances.
2015 is Iowa basketball's second consecutive NCAA tournament invitation.
Since we are going to continue with this idiotic argument...
When the field was 65 teams, what was the game called when two teams played before playing the top overall #1 seed? Or rather what round was it played in?
(yes, we've established it's not a play in game)
After someone answers that, what was the game called when the winner of the game mentioned above (not a play in game) faced the #1 overall seed?
Answer that works for one but not both of these questions: the first round.
When the field was 65 teams, what was the game called when two teams played before playing the top overall #1 seed? Or rather what round was it played in?
(yes, we've established it's not a play in game)
After someone answers that, what was the game called when the winner of the game mentioned above (not a play in game) faced the #1 overall seed?
Answer that works for one but not both of these questions: the first round.
I know its an older link and I probably could have found a newer one, but Im lazy enough as is. I hope you all know starting in 2016, so next year, the NCAA decided to stop being stupid and calling the "play in" games what they really are and stop the confusion calling them the "first round" games. So we can all stop arguing about semantics.
Play in games
The NCAA can call them whatever they want. The rest of the world knows they are play-in games. We know this for no other reason than the NCAA will not put an automatic qualifying team into one of these games. If they were not play-in games, they'd be the 16 seed vs. the 17 seed.
The entire tournament is play in games to get into the round of 32!
Signed,
1978
1978, you are so stupid! The whole tournament is nothing but play in games until the sweet sixteen.
Signed,
1952
'52, you have always been a jacka$$! Everybody knows the tournament is nothing but play in games until you get to the elite eight.
Signed,
1950
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Signed,
1978
1978, you are so stupid! The whole tournament is nothing but play in games until the sweet sixteen.
Signed,
1952
'52, you have always been a jacka$$! Everybody knows the tournament is nothing but play in games until you get to the elite eight.
Signed,
1950
Posted from Rivals Mobile
That was a play in game. The loser was not considered part of the NCAA tournament that year.
That is the definition of a play in game. It is proper and accurate to call that game a play in game.
What's in a name?
I don't care what the NCAA officially recognizes them as: If the current "First Four" are not play in games, then it wasn't a play-in game when it was the 65 team format, either.
If it WAS a play in game back in 2000 (or whenever they added that extra game), then they ARE play in games now, regardless of what they're called.
What I'm saying: It doesn't matter one lick what you call them - the mean the same thing. I prefer to think of these games as being part of the tournament, and that includes the lone 16 vs. 16 game that they had in the 65 team tournament.
I don't care what the NCAA officially recognizes them as: If the current "First Four" are not play in games, then it wasn't a play-in game when it was the 65 team format, either.
If it WAS a play in game back in 2000 (or whenever they added that extra game), then they ARE play in games now, regardless of what they're called.
What I'm saying: It doesn't matter one lick what you call them - the mean the same thing. I prefer to think of these games as being part of the tournament, and that includes the lone 16 vs. 16 game that they had in the 65 team tournament.
Oh it was just a general question since we've already established that there's no such thing as play in games, which I pointed out twice in my question just for good measure. I'm just trying to continue an insanely stupid discussion because I'm bored.
But since I wasn't aware you are the thread topic police, and the thread is titled play in games, and not specific to just 2015, I figured I would ask a general question on how everyone (including yourself) referred to the game previously held between teams #64 and #65, which we've decided is not a play in game. There was a riveting match up back in 09 between Morehead State and Alabama State that I like to discuss with my friends, so I need to know what to refer to it as.
But the NCAA never referred to it as a play in game, so now I'm confused on what rules to follow when calling sporting event matchups by names that have absolutely zero effect on the actual game.
This post was edited on 3/17 1:39 PM by afsocker
When you go to CHA, do you tell your friends you're headed to Medicacom court? Are you the one who refers to the Sears Tower as the Willis Tower? Do you consider UNI to be an FCS team instead of I-AA, even though both levels of D-1 football have championships? And, God forbid, if naming rights are sold for Kinnick Stadium will you be first in line to start calling it Hy-Vee Field?
The tournament has been expanded something like six times? Why all of a sudden are the last teams selected not "in" the tournament until they win at least one game With the most recent expansions? That is a ridiculous concept. What tournament are those teams in? The play in tournament? Was Iowa in the elite eight of the play in tournament last year?
I demand an elite eight banner!
BARTAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Posted from Rivals Mobile
I demand an elite eight banner!
BARTAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Technically if it was the play in tournament, all the winners moved on to the real tournament, making those 4 games the finals of the play in tournament.
So I demand a FINALS banner, as we were one of eight finalists in the play in tournament.
CHA is still called Carver Hawkeye Arena, yes Mediacom bought the naming rights to the court. Doesn't change the name of the Arena.
Yes, it is the Willis Tower now. I visited Chicago two summers ago and went to the top of Willis Tower. It was quite a view.
UNI is currently considered an FCS school in football and a D1 school in basketball.
This isn't that hard, try to keep up.
My point is, and I apologize if I did not make this clear in my snarky examples, you are allowed to use your brain and call something by a term that best conveys meaning rather than use whatever term the entity in charge tells you to to use.
It appeared in your previous post that you were saying you will call the opening round game whatever the NCAA tells you to call it. And anyone who does not use the official name is wrong. I disagree with that thinking. That's all.
So go ahead and enjoy the Franklin American Mortgage Music City Bowl. I'll enjoy the Music City Bowl. We'll both be watching the same game.
I believe that any team that wins their conference tournament should get to start in the round of 64.
For most of the small AQ schools, its an immediate loss, but theres always that sliver of hope they could pull off an upset and they always get to say they were a part of March Madness.
I think its very unfair to take 2 of those small AQ teams and force them to eliminate each other, making sure 1 of them gets a half-assed version of March Madness that's over on Tuesday or Wednesday before the tournament.
The last 8 bubble teams in the tournament should play each other to fill the final 4 spots.
For most of the small AQ schools, its an immediate loss, but theres always that sliver of hope they could pull off an upset and they always get to say they were a part of March Madness.
I think its very unfair to take 2 of those small AQ teams and force them to eliminate each other, making sure 1 of them gets a half-assed version of March Madness that's over on Tuesday or Wednesday before the tournament.
The last 8 bubble teams in the tournament should play each other to fill the final 4 spots.
Good lord some people are sad. Do you really need a definitional term on everything in order to figure out where you "stand"?
"There are too many bowls! They need to cut some away so I know which ones are important! Some of these shouldn' actually count as New Years Day bowls!"
- Is it really that hard to look at and determine which bowl games are the "good" ones and which ones aren't? Of course a school is going to exaggerate their accomplishments while downplaying their failures. That isn't the problem, the problem is when you are too idiotic to figure out which is which.
"It is a play-in game! We are in the REAL tournament...they aren't!"
- Would it make more sense to you if the brackets were filled out to include 27 (or whatever) BYES? Did the Big Ten Tournament this year actually still run a 10--team, but with two "play-in" games?
Either way, call it whatever you want. It is all one goddamn tournament. It isn't like the losers move to the NIT.
Think for yourself for once, not everything needs to be labeled in order to figure out if it is "good" or "bad."
"There are too many bowls! They need to cut some away so I know which ones are important! Some of these shouldn' actually count as New Years Day bowls!"
- Is it really that hard to look at and determine which bowl games are the "good" ones and which ones aren't? Of course a school is going to exaggerate their accomplishments while downplaying their failures. That isn't the problem, the problem is when you are too idiotic to figure out which is which.
"It is a play-in game! We are in the REAL tournament...they aren't!"
- Would it make more sense to you if the brackets were filled out to include 27 (or whatever) BYES? Did the Big Ten Tournament this year actually still run a 10--team, but with two "play-in" games?
Either way, call it whatever you want. It is all one goddamn tournament. It isn't like the losers move to the NIT.
Think for yourself for once, not everything needs to be labeled in order to figure out if it is "good" or "bad."
Worry about beating Davidson. Rather than the Good Bubble Bowl Play In Last Chance First Round Game.
This post was edited on 3/17 5:44 PM by CornIsKing
This post was edited on 3/17 5:44 PM by CornIsKing
they are absolutely play in games no matter what they call them. if they are in the tourny like everyone else then how come after 1 win they are not in the round of 32, and playing on saturday or sunday.
In related news, teams that lost NFL wild card games did not participate in the playoffs. You know since they didn't get a first round bye, they really weren't in the playoffs until they won their first rou...sorry, play in game.
Here is mind blower. Iowa had a bye in the B1G tournament, but Purdue had a double bye. Obviously Nebraska did not participate since they lost in the first round. Did Iowa participate? They did not make quarters. It is very possible that they were not in the tournament?
It all makes sense now! Iowa seemingly was not penalized for losing to PSU by the committee, and now we know why. It never happened!
Posted from Rivals Mobile
