Final verdict is in for the 4 "play-in" games

Donate To GopherHole
S

SelectionSunday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
24,324
Reaction score
4,312
Points
113
It will be a hybrid.

The 8 teams playing in the newly named "First Four" games will be the last 4 at-large qualifiers and the bottom 4 automatic qualifiers. All in all, I think it's a unique idea. What I really like is we'll truly get to find out who the last 4 at-large teams selected were.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5374116
 

I think this is a good compromise, especially when we were at one time talking about the NCAA tournament Armageddon that was a 96-team field.

However, the one interesting facet that I see from this is how it will affect the NCAA tournament brackets and pools. Will the 65-68 teams be just blank lines, or will those games count as points? This is no #16 team were talking about...those 11 and 12 seeds are typically major factors coming into the tournament. This is a more serious question than it sounds, considering the billions of dollars that are spent on these tournaments every year...
 

I think the Gophers will make quite a few appearances in the play-in games.
 

"I think the Gophers will make quite a few appearances in the play-in games."

If history is any indication, you're right. We've definitely been on the bubble more often than not, sometimes with a good ending ('99, '08, '09), others with not such a pleasant result ('93, '96, '02).
 

alltimetwinsfan said:
I think this is a good compromise, especially when we were at one time talking about the NCAA tournament Armageddon that was a 96-team field.

However, the one interesting facet that I see from this is how it will affect the NCAA tournament brackets and pools. Will the 65-68 teams be just blank lines, or will those games count as points? This is no #16 team were talking about...those 11 and 12 seeds are typically major factors coming into the tournament. This is a more serious question than it sounds, considering the billions of dollars that are spent on these tournaments every year...
Click to expand...

This is a valid question. My experience with NCAA pools is that it's all you can do to get the casual fans to complete them by Thursday, much less Tuesday. Therefore, I'm guessing most will give you a free pass if you want to pick one of the play-in winners to advance past the round of 64. This is a potential snag and could hurt casual fans interest (if it causes them to miss a Tuesday deadline or assume they are too late after Tuesday or decide it's too complicated, etc.), though not as bad as 96 would have.
 


See very minimal impact on bracket pools, other than a few more folks (most likely those who follow the sport more closely) waiting to see the Tuesday/Wednesday results before they submit their picks. I would imagine most pool organizers will still use Thursday as their deadline. As Howeda pointed out, the only thing really any different is if you want to take a flyer on an a Tuesday/Wednesday at-large winner advancing past the second round.
 

This is completely idiotic. How is it fair to force a 10/11/12 seed (wherever those teams end up being seeded) to win 7 games to win the title, while a 13/14/15 still only has to win 6? Sure, it's not very likely, but still possible. It wasn't perfect before, but at least the teams you made play that extra game were just thankful for the opportunity to be considered. Without fail, those teams were sacrificial lambs to a 1 seed. These teams are obviously better. If they weren't, they would be seeded 15 or 16, not somewhere in the 10-12 range. Plenty of teams in that area have made deep runs. This will only make it harder for that to happen and is patently unfair to the spirit of competition.

The idiot even said that is solely because of making the games "more appealing". Who cares about actually making the competition fair and balanced? This is just like the proposed divisional alignments in football. Marketers are being given too much power, and they are slowly eroding the appeal of sports, both at the pro and college level.
 

dpodoll68 said:
This is completely idiotic. How is it fair to force a 10/11/12 seed (wherever those teams end up being seeded) to win 7 games to win the title, while a 13/14/15 still only has to win 6? Sure, it's not very likely, but still possible. It wasn't perfect before, but at least the teams you made play that extra game were just thankful for the opportunity to be considered. Without fail, those teams were sacrificial lambs to a 1 seed. These teams are obviously better. If they weren't, they would be seeded 15 or 16, not somewhere in the 10-12 range. Plenty of teams in that area have made deep runs. This will only make it harder for that to happen and is patently unfair to the spirit of competition.

The idiot even said that is solely because of making the games "more appealing". Who cares about actually making the competition fair and balanced? This is just like the proposed divisional alignments in football. Marketers are being given too much power, and they are slowly eroding the appeal of sports, both at the pro and college level.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I like it this way or not, but there's nothing 'unfair' about it. 3 of the 4 at-large teams being asked to play in this early round would have been in the NIT in 2010. The only teams being shafted are the 3 additional Automatic teams that now have to play in the opening round. The 4 at-large teams involved have nothing to say about it.
 

I don't think any of the "last four in" teams really has the right to be upset with having to play an extra game. At least the teams seeded beneath them won their conference tournament.

It seems like a good idea, at least we'll see some bigger name teams playing in the opening round. I've still never been terribly interested in the current play in game.

Honestly, the biggest thing that I enjoy about the new format is that every game is available on tv. Watching on the internet or having to go to a bar was becoming a drain.
 



Seth Greenberg already whining

Not a shocking development. If Greenberg can't get his talented team into the expanded 68-team tournament this season, he should be fired. He's had some talented teams at both South Florida and Virginia Tech, and done very little (1 NCAA appearance). He's still living off his success at Long Beach State (2 NCAAs) from 15-20 years ago.

Sorry Seth, you can tell your team it's all about "the body of work" until you're blue in the face, but if your "body of work" lands you in the the NIT every season, something's wrong. And you are the common denominator.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bas...d/5374366/greenberg-skeptical-new-ncaa-format
 


howeda7 said:
I'm not sure if I like it this way or not, but there's nothing 'unfair' about it. 3 of the 4 at-large teams being asked to play in this early round would have been in the NIT in 2010. The only teams being shafted are the 3 additional Automatic teams that now have to play in the opening round. The 4 at-large teams involved have nothing to say about it.
Click to expand...

OK, how about in the Big Ten tournament, they give the 8, 9, 10 and 11 seeds first round byes, and they make the 3, 4, 5, and 6 play in the first round. Does that sound right or fair to you?
 

dpodoll68 said:
OK, how about in the Big Ten tournament, they give the 8, 9, 10 and 11 seeds first round byes, and they make the 3, 4, 5, and 6 play in the first round. Does that sound right or fair to you?
Click to expand...

It's not the same thing. Yes, teams on the 12 line will be playing in while teams on the 13, 14 and 15 line aren't. But those 13, 14 and 15 seeds earned automatic bids. The teams on the 12 line did not. They were, in fact, the last 4 teams in, and as such have to play an extra game. In the 2010 format, 3 of the 4 wouldn't have made it all. What's so hard to understand? Don't you think VT, Illinois and Dayton would rather have been playing a play-in game on Tuesday then an NIT game on Tuesday?
 



howeda7 said:
It's not the same thing. Yes, teams on the 12 line will be playing in while teams on the 13, 14 and 15 line aren't. But those 13, 14 and 15 seeds earned automatic bids. The teams on the 12 line did not. They were, in fact, the last 4 teams in, and as such have to play an extra game. In the 2010 format, 3 of the 4 wouldn't have made it all. What's so hard to understand? Don't you think VT, Illinois and Dayton would rather have been playing a play-in game on Tuesday then an NIT game on Tuesday?
Click to expand...

It is, in fact, exactly the same thing. Regardless of whether the seeds were earned or granted, they are seeded for a reason. If the seeds weren't granted based on the committee's opinion of who is the better team, what's the point of seeding them at all? Why wouldn't they just put them in a blind draw and have at it?

I don't care about the individual teams. The point is not that 3 teams that would have been playing in the NIT are now in the NCAA tournament. It's about the integrity of the tournament and the seeding process. It is patently unfair (and absurd) to force the 12 seed to play an extra game when the 13, 14, and 15 do not. Period. End of discussion. Cannot be argued against.

If they insisted on this charade, they should make the 4 play-in winners be 16 seeds. While it goes against the spirit of seeding (in that some 16s would definitely be better than certain seeds above them) it at least preserves the integrity of seeding and the balance of the entire bracket.
 

These are games that the at-large play-in team should be able to win pretty handily. It's better than just shoving three of the lower-rated conference winners out of the 1-16 game into a play-in game.

Currently, the play-in game is pretty obscure, people don't pay that much attention to it. With 4 games, it will be more an event than a footnote. And it will also give these teams from minor conferences a fighting chance to get one win in the tournament.
 

RodentRampage said:
These are games that the at-large play-in team should be able to win pretty handily. It's better than just shoving three of the lower-rated conference winners out of the 1-16 game into a play-in game.

Currently, the play-in game is pretty obscure, people don't pay that much attention to it. With 4 games, it will be more an event than a footnote. And it will also give these teams from minor conferences a fighting chance to get one win in the tournament.
Click to expand...

If i am interpreting the games correctly, the committee will take the last 4 in, ranked 1-4 and they will play each other for 2 spots.

They will then take the last 4 automatic qualifiers in, ranked 1-4, and they will play each other for 2 spots.

So essentially, you have 8 teams in play-in games. 4 are at large, and 4 are automatic qualifiers, from those play in games. 2 at large teams and 2 automatic qualifiers will be in the field of 64
 

dpodoll68 said:
It is, in fact, exactly the same thing. Regardless of whether the seeds were earned or granted, they are seeded for a reason. If the seeds weren't granted based on the committee's opinion of who is the better team, what's the point of seeding them at all? Why wouldn't they just put them in a blind draw and have at it?

I don't care about the individual teams. The point is not that 3 teams that would have been playing in the NIT are now in the NCAA tournament. It's about the integrity of the tournament and the seeding process. It is patently unfair (and absurd) to force the 12 seed to play an extra game when the 13, 14, and 15 do not. Period. End of discussion. Cannot be argued against.

If they insisted on this charade, they should make the 4 play-in winners be 16 seeds. While it goes against the spirit of seeding (in that some 16s would definitely be better than certain seeds above them) it at least preserves the integrity of seeding and the balance of the entire bracket.
Click to expand...

It's not the same thing at all. All of the Big 10 teams earn thier seed equally based on record. It's perfectly reasonable that the #13 seed who won thier conference is more deserving of a 'bye' then a #12 seed from the ACC who did not. You're refusing to acknowledge the basic difference between an at-large birth and an automatic bid. By that logic, VT and Illinois should have gotten in at the expense of two of the 16 seeds. Afterall, IF they had been included they WOULD have had a higher seed then several of the automatic qualifiers. There's nothing unfair about saying the last 4 teams in each group have to play an extra game. That's all that's happening here.

Do I think this is perfect, with two play-in games involving the last 4 at-large and two play-in games involving the last 4 AQ? No. I'd rather they said last 8 at-large or last 8 AQ. But I understand why they did it this way. Making the last 8 at-large play-in was never going to fly with the major conferences. And relegating the last 8 AQ'ers to play-in games meant the games would be no more relavent then the 1 game is now, doing no good for the TV partners. In these regards, this was a fair compromise.
 

howeda7 said:
It's perfectly reasonable that the #13 seed who won thier conference is more deserving of a 'bye' then a #12 seed from the ACC who did not.
Click to expand...

Do you understand what a seed is, in the context of a tournament? If you do, then you would see the ridiculousness of your above comment. On what planet should a #13 get any advantage whatsoever over a #12 seed? In fact, the opposite is true.

howeda7 said:
There's nothing unfair about saying the last 4 teams in each group have to play an extra game. That's all that's happening here.
Click to expand...

The only difference between the two is how they got their ticket to the dance. Both happened arbitrarily at the behest of the NCAA. Does that make the AQ more "deserving" than the at-large? To the contrary, considering that most bottom-feeder AQs get smoked in the first round, I'd say they've earned their status as having to fight more obstacles to get in.

howeda7 said:
And relegating the last 8 AQ'ers to play-in games meant the games would be no more relavent then the 1 game is now, doing no good for the TV partners.
Click to expand...

Bingo. My point exactly. I don't give a flying rat's ass what TV wants or needs. NCAA can kowtow to TV all it wants, insofar as it doesn't affect the product. This decision is an example of the NCAA ceding away some of its autonomy. If you're going to hold a tournament, do it the fair and appropriate way. Don't make any decisions whatsoever based on "what TV wants." I realize that I'm being a pragmatist rather than a realist, but that doesn't make me any less correct.
 


RodentRampage said:
There's nothing arbitrary about winning your conference.
Click to expand...

There is about the NCAA determining that all conference winners get an automatic bid.

They could have just as easily said they would have the selection committee pick all 64/65/68 teams every year.

The whole argument that howeda is making is to insinuate that the AQ are somehow more deserving of concessions than the at-large bids because they won their conference. That is irrelevant, as either entry into the tournament is perfectly acceptable and one is not "better" than the other. Plenty of at-large teams have garnered #1 (or 2, 3, 4, etc.) seeds, and many have gone on to win the tournament. Are at-large teams who win the title deserving of less respect than auto-bid teams who did so?
 

dpodoll68 said:
There is about the NCAA determining that all conference winners get an automatic bid.

They could have just as easily said they would have the selection committee pick all 64/65/68 teams every year.

The whole argument that howeda is making is to insinuate that the AQ are somehow more deserving of concessions than the at-large bids because they won their conference. That is irrelevant, as either entry into the tournament is perfectly acceptable and one is not "better" than the other. Plenty of at-large teams have garnered #1 (or 2, 3, 4, etc.) seeds, and many have gone on to win the tournament. Are at-large teams who win the title deserving of less respect than auto-bid teams who did so?
Click to expand...

It's not arbitrary, that's the way they have agreed to do it. Obviously you don't like it, but it's not arbitrary. Yes, they have decided the AQ'ers are more deserving of a concession here. That's not unfair. Win your conference if you don't like it (or at least play yourself off the bubble). What makes the NCAA tournament better then the joke that is college football's Bowl system is that it does include everyone. To force the bottom 8 AQ'ers into this play-in bracket goes against that whole point and basically pushes the smallest conferences out. There's nothing wrong with saying the last at-large teams are the ones who play the extra game. That is a seperate issue from where they will be seeded among the remaining 64 if they win. FWIW, the two methods of getting into the tournament are not 'equal' as you imply. Everyone prefers the automatic bid, that's why winning the conference touranments matter. It matters less in the major conferences, but it still matters.
 

howeda7 said:
It's not arbitrary, that's the way they have agreed to do it.
Click to expand...

"The way they have agreed to do it" is the very definition of the word "arbitrary". Look it up if you don't believe me.

howeda7 said:
What makes the NCAA tournament better then the joke that is college football's Bowl system is that it does include everyone.
Click to expand...

Agree with you 100%. The bowl system sucks. What's ironic is that this decision inches the tournament closer to the bowl system than the way the tournament used to be. Outside of legislated arrangements, bowl participants are selected based largely on popularity contests, be that popularity among pollsters or popularity among their own fan base. There is often no rhyme or reason to the selections, as evidenced by the number of times the Gophers have been screwed over for lesser teams. The tournament has always been different. The parameters were well known and easy to identify. The 64-team tournament was about as egalitarian as could be expected given the variance in quality among the 300+ schools that comprise Division I. Adding one watered that down, but it really wasn't that big of a deal given that the winner was given a 16 seed, meaning it did as little as possible to harm the integrity of a balanced, fair bracket. By making this decision, they are arbitrarily deciding a 13-, 14-, or 15-seed deserves more advantages than a 12-seed. Where does that make any sense whatsoever outside of Bizarro World?

howeda7 said:
To force the bottom 8 AQ'ers into this play-in bracket goes against that whole point and basically pushes the smallest conferences out.
Click to expand...

False. They are still given a seat at the table...they are just forced to play into the bottom seeds, as it should be. If you will note, earlier in the thread I said I have no problem with forcing the last four at-large teams to be in the "play-in" games. The error is that the winners should be 16 seeds, without variation. Anything else is utterly senseless.

howeda7 said:
There's nothing wrong with saying the last at-large teams are the ones who play the extra game. That is a seperate issue from where they will be seeded among the remaining 64 if they win.
Click to expand...

See above (and earlier in the thread) for my answers to this.

howeda7 said:
FWIW, the two methods of getting into the tournament are not 'equal' as you imply. Everyone prefers the automatic bid, that's why winning the conference touranments matter. It matters less in the major conferences, but it still matters.
Click to expand...

I never said the methods of entry are equal, which is what you're trying to tell me I said. What I said is that the bids themselves are equal. Or, at least, they always have been, until the NCAA arbitrarily decided that a 13-seed is better than a 12-seed.
 

"The way they have agreed to do it" is the very definition of the word "arbitrary". Look it up if you don't believe me.
Click to expand...

The decision to grant automatic bids to conferences was made long ago and was not arbitrarily arrived at.

By making this decision, they are arbitrarily deciding a 13-, 14-, or 15-seed deserves more advantages than a 12-seed. Where does that make any sense whatsoever outside of Bizarro World?
Click to expand...

I guess we agree to disagree. Those poor 12 seeds control thier own destinty to get themselves out of that situation. Those 13 seeds already did everything they could by winning thier conference. Even if this is 'unfair' to the last 4 at-large teams, you're making it sound much worse then it really is. One decision involves how the ultimate 64 teams is arrived at. The other involves how those 64 teams are seeded.


False. They are still given a seat at the table...they are just forced to play into the bottom seeds, as it should be. If you will note, earlier in the thread I said I have no problem with forcing the last four at-large teams to be in the "play-in" games. The error is that the winners should be 16 seeds, without variation. Anything else is utterly senseless.
Click to expand...

Let's not kid ourselves, even in this format, losing in the play-in game will not be same as actually making into the field of 64. By forcing the last 8 AQ'ers to play the play-in game, you're basically saying '**** you' to the small conferences and kicking 4 of them out, so 4 more medicore BCS conference teams can get in. That doesn't make the tournament better. At least this way you're only kicking out 2. When they went to 65, it was because a new conference was given an automatic bid. The # of at-large was not being increased. This expansion is to add 3 at-large teams. If it was because 3 new conferences were asking for bids, I'd agree with you.

As for doing it with at-large teams but making them #16 seeds, the problem with that is obvious. It's not that it's unfair to Illinois or VT to be 'forced' to be a 16 seed. They're the last teams in, they should go wherever they're told. But it's obviously a complete joke to expect #1 seeded Kentucky or Kansas to play to VT and Illinois while the #2 seeded OSU plays Morgan State. Seeding is done primarily to ensure the top seeds earn thier rightful draw. Not to worry about whether a #14 should maybe have been a #13.
 

howeda7 said:
By forcing the last 8 AQ'ers to play the play-in game, you're basically saying '**** you' to the small conferences and kicking 4 of them out, so 4 more medicore BCS conference teams can get in.
Click to expand...
howeda7 said:
That doesn't make the tournament better. it's obviously a complete joke to expect #1 seeded Kentucky or Kansas to play to VT and Illinois while the #2 seeded OSU plays Morgan State. Seeding is done primarily to ensure the top seeds earn thier rightful draw. Not to worry about whether a #14 should maybe have been a #13.
Click to expand...

In the first quote above, you say that adding 4 "mediocre" BCS teams is somehow worse than adding 4 small conference champions. In the next quote, you say "Kentucky shouldn't have to play Illinois while OSU plays Morgan St.", implying that Illinois is a much better opponent. The two statements are contradictory. It can't be both, so which is it?

Just for fun, here are the lowest 4 RPIs among tournament teams last year (realtimerpi.com):

Robert Morris (23-11) (129); Lehigh (22-10) (152); Winthrop (17-13) (160); and Arkansas-Pine Bluff (17-15) (183)

Since there's truly no way of knowing who the "last 4 out" were last year, here are the 4 teams with the highest RPIs not to make the tournament last year:

Rhode Island (23-9) (40); Wichita St. (24-9) (43); UAB (23-8) (45); and Kent. St. (22-9) (47)

We both know that none of these four teams would've made the tournament. This is for illustrative purposes only. In reality, the four teams chosen would be even better than these, making my argument even stronger than it already is.

Since your main concern seems to be "making the tournament better", can you honestly say with a straight face that the AQ teams above, with an average record/RPI of 20-12 (156), make for a better tournament that the hypothetical at-large teams, with an average record/RPI of 23-9 (44)? Honestly?

(P.S. I don't care about the Kum ba yah, hold our hands and sing together, everyone gets a fair shot, attitude that's been granted towards the small conferences. You want a fair shot? Get better. The 16 seeds are what, 0-104 now vs. 1 seeds? The 15s are a robust 4-100 vs. 2s. A 12 seed has actually made it to the Elite Eight, and two 11s have made it to the Final Four. And we want to placate the 15s and 16s at the expense of the 12s and 11s? Unbelievable.)
 

Arbitrary: 1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

-- American Heritage Dictionary
 

dpodoll68 said:
In the first quote above, you say that adding 4 "mediocre" BCS teams is somehow worse than adding 4 small conference champions. In the next quote, you say "Kentucky shouldn't have to play Illinois while OSU plays Morgan St.", implying that Illinois is a much better opponent. The two statements are contradictory. It can't be both, so which is it?

Just for fun, here are the lowest 4 RPIs among tournament teams last year (realtimerpi.com):

Robert Morris (23-11) (129); Lehigh (22-10) (152); Winthrop (17-13) (160); and Arkansas-Pine Bluff (17-15) (183)

Since there's truly no way of knowing who the "last 4 out" were last year, here are the 4 teams with the highest RPIs not to make the tournament last year:

Rhode Island (23-9) (40); Wichita St. (24-9) (43); UAB (23-8) (45); and Kent. St. (22-9) (47)

We both know that none of these four teams would've made the tournament. This is for illustrative purposes only. In reality, the four teams chosen would be even better than these, making my argument even stronger than it already is.

Since your main concern seems to be "making the tournament better", can you honestly say with a straight face that the AQ teams above, with an average record/RPI of 20-12 (156), make for a better tournament that the hypothetical at-large teams, with an average record/RPI of 23-9 (44)? Honestly?

(P.S. I don't care about the Kum ba yah, hold our hands and sing together, everyone gets a fair shot, attitude that's been granted towards the small conferences. You want a fair shot? Get better. The 16 seeds are what, 0-104 now vs. 1 seeds? The 15s are a robust 4-100 vs. 2s. A 12 seed has actually made it to the Elite Eight, and two 11s have made it to the Final Four. And we want to placate the 15s and 16s at the expense of the 12s and 11s? Unbelievable.)
Click to expand...

Yes Illinois (or Rhode Island or Wichita State) is a better oppenent then Morgan State. But yes, the tournament is better letting in the Morgan State's of the world rather then more Illinois'. It can be both. I don't know why that's so hard to understand. Clearly you prefer a tournament where the Top 65 teams are let in regardless of conference. That's not the way it is, and I don't think it would be better that way. Just because a 6-10 Miami team from the ACC could beat the snot out of Morgan State does not mean the tournament is better if Miami is let in. Such a tournament would also render the regular season in major conferences meaningless (much as expansion to 96 would have). Who gets into the NCAA tournament isn't just about the tournament itself, but the 4 months or regular season that lead up to it. Telling the small conferences to simply 'get better' and earn at-large bids isn't realistic for the SWAC's of the world you and you know it.

In any case, your original bluster seemed to be about the 'integrity' of the seeding process. Yet you seemed perfectly willing to have the last 8 at-large teams play-in as long as they were placed on the 16 line. So you were willing to screw the #1 seeds by making them play a tougher opponent then the #2 and #3 seeds in order to preserve the integrity of 12-16 seeds? This is what I found illogical.
 

howeda7 said:
In any case, your original bluster seemed to be about the 'integrity' of the seeding process. Yet you seemed perfectly willing to have the last 8 at-large teams play-in as long as they were placed on the 16 line. So you were willing to screw the #1 seeds by making them play a tougher opponent then the #2 and #3 seeds in order to preserve the integrity of 12-16 seeds? This is what I found illogical.
Click to expand...

Yes, I would rather have that, because, after all, if the AQ teams are better than the at-larges, the 1s shouldn't have any problem playing a #16 seed Virginia Tech or Illinois, right? [/sarcasm]

The only perfect way to still allow the lower-tier AQ schools their chance in the tournament, and maintain the integrity of the seeds, is to have the worst 8 AQ schools in the play-in games. I'm pretty sure you realize that, but are just unwilling to admit it for whatever reason. They are trading the integrity of the bracket for the sake of TV ratings. A devil's wager, if you ask me.

The other interesting thing that I haven't even brought up in all of this is that the new format makes some 12s "more equal" than other 12s, while some 16s are also "more equal" than other 16s. Tell me how that is fair.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Yes, I would rather have that, because, after all, if the AQ teams are better than the at-larges, the 1s shouldn't have any problem playing a #16 seed Virginia Tech or Illinois, right? [/sarcasm]

The only perfect way to still allow the lower-tier AQ schools their chance in the tournament, and maintain the integrity of the seeds, is to have the worst 8 AQ schools in the play-in games. I'm pretty sure you realize that, but are just unwilling to admit it for whatever reason. They are trading the integrity of the bracket for the sake of TV ratings. A devil's wager, if you ask me.

The other interesting thing that I haven't even brought up in all of this is that the new format makes some 12s "more equal" than other 12s, while some 16s are also "more equal" than other 16s. Tell me how that is fair.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by 'perfect'. It is in the eye of the beholder I guess. Personally, I'd rather they just went back to 64 and left well enough alone. But 68 is a reality and I have no problem making the at-large teams play-in instead of the AQers. Those at large-teams only have this chance because the tournament was expanded, or they would be SOL. Those AQ'ers would have been in under any system, why should they get kicked out of the 64 team field?

I think a 68 team bracket by its nature has less 'integrity' then a clean 64 team field. But who the 8 play-in teams are doesn't alter it much. You have a point about some of the 12's being 'more equal'. The last 4 in are not going to be drawn from a hat though, the 4 lowest RPI's among at-large will have play the play-in games. Your point is more from the prespective of the #5 seed. Why does one get to play a fully rested 12 seed while the other plays one that's gassed from playing Tuesday night? Is that fair? No. It's what makes the 68 team concept imperfect. But in theory those last teams in are generally 'hot' teams that made a late run, such as this year's Gophers, so maybe you don't want to play them either.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom