The little guys have plenty of opportunity to avoid those 16 seeds. They end up there because they honestly dont really deserve much of a spot in the tourney (theyre being put into the last spots in the tournament, and lets be honest, there are multiple at large teams that get left out that would be better than the 15\16 seeds most years, so really youre talking about sub top 70 teams). I have no problem with 'little guys' getting into the tourney, they can make things fun, but only the ones that actually deserve those spots. Winning an awful conference (or worse, not even winning it and just having a couple lucky tournament games) doesnt really mean much if you couldnt put up any quality wins.
NCAA tournament play-in games
- Thread starter TigerCyJM
- Start date
The little guys have plenty of opportunity to avoid those 16 seeds. They end up there because they honestly dont really deserve much of a spot in the tourney (theyre being put into the last spots in the tournament, and lets be honest, there are multiple at large teams that get left out that would be better than the 15\16 seeds most years, so really youre talking about sub top 70 teams). I have no problem with 'little guys' getting into the tourney, they can make things fun, but only the ones that actually deserve those spots. Winning an awful conference (or worse, not even winning it and just having a couple lucky tournament games) doesnt really mean much if you couldnt put up any quality wins.
I agree. I don't like that some conference champs get stuck in the "play in" games. Even if their conference is horrible they earned the right to be at the dance and not see their run die in front of 500 people in Dayton.
I like your idea of only lower seeded at large teams. Having bigger names from bigger conferences in that round may actually add to the appeal as well.
I disagree that they earned anything. Beating a crappy conference doesnt earn anything. Most of the at larges could probably do that. If theyre a 16 seed its usually because they both won a crappy conference and didnt do anything to earn a spot in their nonconference play.
I mean, to take it to the farthest extent, if a team went winless through nonconference and conference, but then had a good couple of days and won a bad conference tournament (and maybe had the road paved a bit by higher seeds getting knocked out in that tournament), does that 3-4 win team, that would likely be looked at as one of the worst in the country, deserve a spot amongst the top 64 teams?
Last edited:
I would question how much a low-major team can do to bolster their resume with scheduling. Team's like UMKC don't typically get team's like Iowa State to play a road game.
I don't disagree with many of the sentiments about giving 5/6 seeds an advantage (whether it plays out or not) or having the true bottom 8 teams play in the play in game. I just think it is a disservice to those low major schools that make the tourney but don't really "make" it because they only play in Dayton.
I don't disagree with many of the sentiments about giving 5/6 seeds an advantage (whether it plays out or not) or having the true bottom 8 teams play in the play in game. I just think it is a disservice to those low major schools that make the tourney but don't really "make" it because they only play in Dayton.
They are experiencing the tournament. That game is an official tournament game. The results are official tournament records. It is just the round before the round of 64. And they still have a chance to win AND play in round of 64. If you just have at-large, then 16 seeds only experience is losing in tournament (thus far). If you were one of these schools, which would you rather have?
Plus there are plenty of little guys still left at 14 and 15 seeds. And if you put the opening round with all 16 seeds, then the 14 and 15 will have a better chance of pulling off an upset as will the winning 16 seed (if you want storylines) because they would have been one seed higher if we only had 64 teams.
According to the way the tournament is structured withe the conference champ auto bids yes. I get your point and agree to an extent but the tournament is set up to allow the conference champ from every conference a spot in the tourney regardless. I just don't like the fact of kids winning their tourney and then not getting to play in the dance just because some selection committee thinks their conference sucks.
Does the winner of that game not get to advance to the next round? You act like neither team in the game will get to the round of 64. The solution is winning THAT game.
The problem is perception. The First Four IS part of the tournament. They are not excluded. This is like saying when there were 48 teams, the 12 seed should have gotten in the Round of 32 without having to play the round of 64 game. It is simple principles of tournament bracketing and seeding that the committee is violating.
I just prefer that the play-in game be left to the big schools getting at large bids, that is all. I understand both sides of the argument. The reason the play in games got added years ago was because of a new conference being formed and the NCAA not wanting to eliminate an at large bid to accommodate that auto bid.
Call me mushy on this one, I'd just like to see the tiny schools be involved with the actual tournament sites and not the play in games that no one really cares about.
Call me mushy on this one, I'd just like to see the tiny schools be involved with the actual tournament sites and not the play in games that no one really cares about.
As I said, I wish it had gone one way or the other, but I lean toward the opening round being strictly at-large. That's because I assumed expansion was a way to decide those final bubble spots on the court, rather than in the selection committee room.
But like others have said, this was a way to make $$ with games on two nights, half of them possibly involving "major conference" teams, with the "appearance" of settling those decisions head-to-head.
The tournament was fine at 64, but that's easy for me to say, since I'm not making any money from it ...
I think the problem is people referring to them as "play-in" games. They are already in. They are as much of a play-in game to the Round of 64 as the Sweet Sixteen is to the Elite Eight.
And how many people care about the 1-16 MatchupsClass that are blowouts. The fans of these schools would rather have an official tournament win than just go and get blown out in one game that nobody cares about.
And how many people care about the 1-16 MatchupsClass that are blowouts. The fans of these schools would rather have an official tournament win than just go and get blown out in one game that nobody cares about.
I know it's part of the tournament but no one can tell me with a straight face that playing in the play in games is the same as going to one of the main tournament sights.
I just don't like the fact that there are kids who have played their whole careers hoping for the shot at the tourney and when they finally get the chance some committee tells them they get to go to Dayton instead of the round of 64. Meanwhile some team who finishes with a .500 conference record from a larger conference gets to go to the round of 64.
And by doing so, that team has likely done more to prove its worth than any 16 seed has. Plus usually an at large team that finishes .500 in conference also had to have a bit of noncon resume as well.
The biggest problem that I have is that they are making a school that was seeded higher by ALL of there other criteria play an extra game. If a team truly deserved to be seeded higher based on the criteria set out by the committee, they shouldn't be punished. That is the basic principles of bracketing and seeding.
However because of money and perceived fairness, not actual fairness, they come up with this hybrid system. To me it is simple. Higher seeds get byes before lower seeds do. Any other criteria should have 0% weight in the decision.
However because of money and perceived fairness, not actual fairness, they come up with this hybrid system. To me it is simple. Higher seeds get byes before lower seeds do. Any other criteria should have 0% weight in the decision.
I know what you are saying but the tournament rules were set up to reward every conference champ first and then bring in the at large's after that. I'm not arguing worthiness of teams here. I'm just stating I don't like the way the tourney has started to treat the lower conference champs. Before the "1st round" when you won your conference you were in the dance because there were only 64 teams. I just feel that conference champs should be automatically in the round of 64. Just my opinion.
No they weren't. That just determines who gets in. Seeding determines where they should be placed. Top 60 seeds should get bye. Otherwise, they shouldn't have been seeded that way.
A question for those that believe auto-bids should get the bye instead of higher seeded teams:
If we someday go up to 96 as has been discussed in the past, should auto-bids then still get the bye to the round of 64, or should that be reserved to only the top 32 seeded teams? Do they deserve a guaranteed spot in the round of 64 more than a 32nd ranked (currently 8 seed) at large? Would it seem less like a play-in game if 2/3 of the teams in the tournament were playing them?
If we someday go up to 96 as has been discussed in the past, should auto-bids then still get the bye to the round of 64, or should that be reserved to only the top 32 seeded teams? Do they deserve a guaranteed spot in the round of 64 more than a 32nd ranked (currently 8 seed) at large? Would it seem less like a play-in game if 2/3 of the teams in the tournament were playing them?
In that scenario than no because the "first round" would become just as big as the round of 64 now not some empty arena in Dayton.
To me it's about the experience for the players. They earned their way in and should get a shot at playing in front of the big crowds of the tournament.
Exactly. They shouldn't. The top x teams should get a bye where x is the number of byes. This principle should hold no matter how many teams there are. (note x>=0)
