If not "play in"....

[Ciclone]

First Four: A play-in game, and insult - CBSSports.com

Pretty good write-up here.

 

[Cypower69]

At my work, they're counting these games in our brackets.

HAHA. You must work with a bunch of HOKS!!!

 

[Cyclonesince78]

I'd just like to go back to 64 teams. Looking at the play in games this year, I think we would have been fine.

I agree, with of course giving that 11 seed to Tennessee over Iowa. Maybe next year hoks.

 

[JohnnyFive]

Play-in game = participation ribbon

/thread

 

[Rabbuk]

Tennessee is legitimately a pretty good team. I enjoyed watching them play the handful of times i did.

 

[Erik4Cy]

Being told not to call it a "play in" game but a "first four":



This article said it pretty well:

First Four: A play-in game, and insult - CBSSports.com

The NCAA prefers that we don't call what happened Tuesday night a play-in game, and I prefer you don't call me bald. It's possible I am bald, but do me the courtesy of not noticing.

Even Albany's coach and players have been calling this thing a play-in game since Sunday night, when they gathered to watch the selection show and watched their name come up for ... this. The team wasn't clapping or hooting. The team was stunned, and trying to recover.

 

[cyrocksmypants]

Wow, that article was really good. I agree. An automatic qualifier should automatically qualify you. If the NCAA doesn't like the rule, change it. But the play ins are stupid. I want it to just be 64 again, but if you have to have four play in games, do it with the last four at large bids. Those others schools earned their right to the dance according to how the rules said to do it. I hope someone runs with this to try to embarrass the NCAA into changing it.

 

[Cyclones01]

 

[Cypower69]

I saw an post somewhere that MadFran gets something like a $300k raise for "making" the tournament this year. Clearly he is not calling it what it is, he has $300k on the line.

If you are Barta you have to feel scr*wed about the entire thing.

 

[LindenCy]

First Four: A play-in game, and insult - CBSSports.com

Pretty good write-up here.

Great article. And this hilarious quote out of a Hawk fan in the comments:

Have you considered that the "atrocious end of the season" came from playing very good teams while not playing their best? Instead of dumping on the Hawks, why not be thankful for the opportunity they have been given?

 

[bluestarcyclone]

But those at-large teams from major conferences have already proven that they can't beat good teams, so they don't belong anyway.

I'm not watching to see mediocre failures like Iowa. I'm watching to see good teams take their shot at the title, and teams that don't get that opportunity finally get one. If the mediocre major conference teams don't like that, they can go ahead and get some more wins.

You say that like the 16 seeds have proven anything.

Lets compare one at large team in a play in game to one that isnt. Tennessee vs Coastal Carolina.

Tenn is a team that had 3 wins against the top 50, 7 against the top 100, and no sub-200 losses. Coastal Carolina has no top 100 wins at all and a losing record against the top 101-200 (so it has also proven it cant beat top teams) It also has 4 losses to sub 200 teams including 2 losses to sub 300 teams. You cant tell me that because they beat teams rated 268, 211, and 168 (their conference tournament, and that 168 is the best win coastal carolina has) that they somehow deserve to not be in a play-in game. Almost any at large team would be expected to win all 3 of those games. Hell, Tennessee beat 10 teams better than Coastal Carolina's *best* win.

 

[CycloneErik]

Great article. And this hilarious quote out of a Hawk fan in the comments:

They did face a Murderer's Row of Minnesota, Illinois, and Northwestern there. Can't expect a tournament team to beat that level of competition on a regular basis.

 

[JellyBean]

Erin Kiernan called it "play in" last night on the 13 news... oooops.

 

[Clonefan94]

For the 11/12 games you probably would rather wait to see who wins so you can decide your pick for the next round

I'd rather do that for every round, wouldn't you?

 

[azepp]

I agree, go back to 64 and have fun in the NIT to the last 4 at large teams.

I, for one, am glad that they let in 68 otherwise we'd be playing in the NIT!

Bracket Briefing: 12 players poised to become March Madness stars

ON DECK TONIGHT: A look at the rest of the First Four matchups on Wednesday.
— No. 11 Iowa State vs. No. 11 Tennessee
— No. 16 Cal Poly vs. No. 16 Texas Southern

 

[carvers4math]

I, for one, am glad that they let in 68 otherwise we'd be playing in the NIT!

Bracket Briefing: 12 players poised to become March Madness stars

Is this the same USA Today guy who picked us last in the conference? Maybe had us confused with the Hoks all year? There's some quality journalism.

 

[cyrocksmypants]

I, for one, am glad that they let in 68 otherwise we'd be playing in the NIT!

Bracket Briefing: 12 players poised to become March Madness stars

I'd rather that call Iowa "Iowa State" than call Iowa State "Iowa". I'm okay with this.

 

[Bigman38]

You say that like the 16 seeds have proven anything.

Lets compare one at large team in a play in game to one that isnt. Tennessee vs Coastal Carolina.

Tenn is a team that had 3 wins against the top 50, 7 against the top 100, and no sub-200 losses. Coastal Carolina has no top 100 wins at all and a losing record against the top 101-200 (so it has also proven it cant beat top teams) It also has 4 losses to sub 200 teams including 2 losses to sub 300 teams. You cant tell me that because they beat teams rated 268, 211, and 168 (their conference tournament, and that 168 is the best win coastal carolina has) that they somehow deserve to not be in a play-in game. Almost any at large team would be expected to win all 3 of those games. Hell, Tennessee beat 10 teams better than Coastal Carolina's *best* win.

In the big conferences I think everyone has a decent idea of who teams are. 30 games, 20+ against solid competition. You are who you are at this point, there's not much mystery left. I'd rather see a mid major get a shot. Their resume won't stack up but part of the reason for that is because they haven't had as many opportunities to prove themselves. So let them try to prove themselves.

 

[cyclones500]

I echo those who think play-in ought to be four at-large contenders, instead of the 16's, but I've said since expansion that it should be one or the other.