Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess I shoulda paid closer attn when they announced the change this year, but I just assumed there would be a play-in for the 16th seed in each region. Obviously, that was wrong!
Can somebody explain why USC/VCU was a play-in for the 11th seed in the SouthWest region, while lower seeds got a free ride past the play-in round? Same thing with Clemson/UAB for 12th seed in the East?? Why the East region had 2 play-ins, while the West Region did not have any???
Just curious, but can't figure out the logic behind it. Thanks.
They expanded the tourney from 64 to 68 this year. 2 play-in games deal with teams on bubbles; the other 2 are facing a 1 seed i.e. making them a 16 seed. The seeds below these guys were auto-ins based on conference tie ins.
Thanks, I figured something like that. So some conference connections guarantee field of 64, rather than just making the tournament? Obviously, not all automatic qualifiers were exempt from play-in, so the small guys get screwed again? Or just be thankful for their 40 minutes of glory?
Thanks, I figured something like that. So some conference connections guarantee field of 64, rather than just making the tournament? Obviously, not all automatic qualifiers were exempt from play-in, so the small guys get screwed again? Or just be thankful for their 40 minutes of glory?
Not sure what you are getting at. Southern Cal and Clemson do not really qualify as little guys.
Not sure what you are getting at. Southern Cal and Clemson do not really qualify as little guys.
Yeah, I know, not sure what my point is either. It just seems if USC and VCU were both legit 11th seeds, they shouldn't have to play-in. It seems logical to me the eight lowest seeded teams would be playing-in for the last 4 berths.
Actually, I think any team that wins their conference's auto-qualifier should be in the 64, regardless of conference size. The 8 play-ins teams should be the lowest seeded at-large teams, but the power conferences would never go for that.
Yeah, I know, not sure what my point is either. It just seems if USC and VCU were both legit 11th seeds, they shouldn't have to play-in. It seems logical to me the eight lowest seeded teams would be playing-in for the last 4 berths.
Actually, I think any team that wins their conference's auto-qualifier should be in the 64, regardless of conference size. The 8 play-ins teams should be the lowest seeded at-large teams, but the power conferences would never go for that.
The system we have now is a split between the two things you are suggesting. You might call it a compromise.
If I had to choose, I think I would rather the play-in games involve all bubble teams. After all, if it weren't for expansion, they would be out. Punishing the small schools that would be 16 seeds takes away from their short time in the spotlight. Many of these schools are just happy to see their team name mixed in with all the other games in the Thrusday-Friday games. To be knocked out even before then, is just wrong after they earned the right to be there by winning their conference tournament.
Do you think it would be better if they could somehow give the top seeds a bye as a reward instead like the do in some of the conference tournaments, and thus no little guys would have to feel left out and could play in the Thursday-Friday games?
Bottom line is that we don't need more schools in the field- these last teams are worse than I remember 10 years ago. Cut it to 64. That is enough. These play-in games are ridiculous and are nothing more than a means to keep the BCS schools happy as more and more schools move up to I-A status. As the conferences increase, the number of auto bids does as well. That is the underlying reason why we have 68 and not 65 and why we started to have 65 rather than 64 a few years back. At the same token, I am not opposed to tightening the requirements as to what is mandated to field a I-A basketball team. For example, New Jersey Institute of Technology??? Some of these schools play in what looks like a 500 seat capacity high school gym. Some are commuter colleges. I'm all about the little guy in college basketball, but there needs to be some limitations- at least don't increase the # of conferences so that the auto bids go up further. It was a perfect balance when we had 31 autos and 33 at-larges.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It just seems if USC and VCU were both legit 11th seeds, they shouldn't have to play-in. It seems logical to me the eight lowest seeded teams would be playing-in for the last 4 berths.
