Can somebody explain to me why there are two play in games for 16 seeds but also for like 11 seeds? It seems like the random 11 seeds just get punished, so it should be the 16 seeds because they're the lowest, right? Why is this?
Can somebody explain to me why there are two play in games for 16 seeds but also for like 11 seeds? It seems like the random 11 seeds just get punished, so it should be the 16 seeds because they're the lowest, right? Why is this?
I think up to 11s are typically at large... Where above that seed typically are win ins from conference tourneys.
Can somebody explain to me why there are two play in games for 16 seeds but also for like 11 seeds? It seems like the random 11 seeds just get punished, so it should be the 16 seeds because they're the lowest, right? Why is this?
Every game is a play-in game until you are the champion. Hey, it is a good chance to be ion national TV.
I never liked the term "Play-In" because those teams are already IN the tournament. They just aren't in the round of 64. So your point is well taken. The round of 64 are play-in games to the round of 32 and so on. I like to call them Opening Round or Preliminary Round. I also don't like calling them First Round and the round of 64 Second Round because 60 teams are playing their first game in the "Second Round".
Call it a prequel....I also HATE that the First Four (as they call it, which is cool with me) is considered first round now. It causes unnecessary confusion, since Th-Fri had been "First Round" for 25 seasons.
Until they fix that, I'm calling it "play-in" :sad:
It should be the 16 seeds (followed by 15 seeds, etc) in all the play-in games if they are going to have them. Minor conference teams have plenty of chances to prove their worth by scheduling in their nonconference. Its not usually great teams getting those 16 seeds (generally they arent even one of the top 70 teams and to be honest they deserve the spot less than some at larges that end up in the NIT), but teams that have little to no resume that just happened to get in from a lucky conference tourney showing. Those 11 seeds have done more and proven more than those 16 seeds have, and making them 'play-in' is just punishing them for being in a better conference that deserves multiple bids.
I hate the play-ins also, and wish they would not have them at all. But given the current setup, I think all the play-ins should be for the 11 seeds. Why should a 1 seed get punished and have to play a harder team because of a play-in?
I go the other way. I think if they are going to have play in games it should be the last eight at large teams.
If the NCAA tournament is going to keep the "little guy" story line then let them experience the actual tournament. Not the fake one in Dayton. Let the BCS level teams that can't crack the top 40 even with all of their advantages play the play in games.