Anyone find it odd that Dayton will be HOSTING an NCAA Tournament game this week that they'll be playing in?

Quote:A team will not be permitted to play in any facility in which it has played more than three games during its season, not including exhibitions and conference post-season tournaments.

A host institution’s team shall not be permitted to play at the site where the institution is hosting. However, the team may play on the same days when the institution is hosting.

Teams may play at a site where the conference of which it is a member is serving as the host.

Here is the link to the rules:

ncaa.com/content/di-principles-and-procedures-selection

If the NCAA was so insistent on getting Texas or UCLA in, then they should be in the play-in game (they should be there anyways).

They should have manipulated the numbers and moved Dayton into a regular 11 seed...

(03-16-2015 09:49 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Anyone find it odd that Dayton will be HOSTING an NCAA Tournament game this week that they'll be playing in?

Quote:A team will not be permitted to play in any facility in which it has played more than three games during its season, not including exhibitions and conference post-season tournaments.

A host institution’s team shall not be permitted to play at the site where the institution is hosting. However, the team may play on the same days when the institution is hosting.

Teams may play at a site where the conference of which it is a member is serving as the host.

Here is the link to the rules:

ncaa.com/content/di-principles-and-procedures-selection

If the NCAA was so insistent on getting Texas or UCLA in, then they should be in the play-in game (they should be there anyways).

It's not odd. The NCAA has explained several times before that there's an explicit exception in the event that Dayton is seeded to be in the play-in game. They have always known that it's a possibility and it's more important to stay true to the seeding than Dayton getting a home game in the play-in game. (Whether you personally agree with where Texas or UCLA got seeded is of no consequence.)

It's totally unfair to Boise.

(03-16-2015 10:11 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  It's totally unfair to Boise.

It would be more unfair to give a bye to Dayton if the committee determined that they didn't deserve it.

Look - I *personally* think that Dayton is better than both Texas and UCLA. However, that's irrelevant. Ultimately, the committee is the judge, jury and executioner with respect to the bracket. The committee should absolutely NOT take into consideration that Dayton is hosting the play-in game as to whether Dayton should be placed there. If the committee determines that Dayton should be seeded for the play-in game, then they should be placed there regardless of the location. Period.

(03-16-2015 09:49 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Anyone find it odd that Dayton will be HOSTING an NCAA Tournament game this week that they'll be playing in?

Quote:A team will not be permitted to play in any facility in which it has played more than three games during its season, not including exhibitions and conference post-season tournaments.

A host institution’s team shall not be permitted to play at the site where the institution is hosting. However, the team may play on the same days when the institution is hosting.

Teams may play at a site where the conference of which it is a member is serving as the host.

Here is the link to the rules:

ncaa.com/content/di-principles-and-procedures-selection

If the NCAA was so insistent on getting Texas or UCLA in, then they should be in the play-in game (they should be there anyways).

Really what they should do is either expand Tuesday/Wednesday to put more teams in the tournament and play more games on those days, or just scrap the First Four and have a field of 64 teams, period. There was a "Temple or UCLA" discussion on another board last night and my take was, the right answer is that both should be in the NIT. I'll extend that to all of the "last four in" and "first four out" teams. They all have very flawed resumes. Go back to a 64-team tournament.

(03-16-2015 10:21 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 10:11 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  It's totally unfair to Boise.

It would be more unfair to give a bye to Dayton if the committee determined that they didn't deserve it.

Look - I *personally* think that Dayton is better than both Texas and UCLA. However, that's irrelevant. Ultimately, the committee is the judge, jury and executioner with respect to the bracket. The committee should absolutely NOT take into consideration that Dayton is hosting the play-in game as to whether Dayton should be placed there. If the committee determines that Dayton should be seeded for the play-in game, then they should be placed there regardless of the location. Period.

Frank...they have always manipulated the numbers in the past. When they justified UCLA by using the "eye test" that was enough for me to say they could've bumped Dayton up a few spots.

They should play these games at the Indy pacers home, why dayton?

(03-16-2015 10:07 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 09:49 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Anyone find it odd that Dayton will be HOSTING an NCAA Tournament game this week that they'll be playing in?

Quote:A team will not be permitted to play in any facility in which it has played more than three games during its season, not including exhibitions and conference post-season tournaments.

A host institution’s team shall not be permitted to play at the site where the institution is hosting. However, the team may play on the same days when the institution is hosting.

Teams may play at a site where the conference of which it is a member is serving as the host.

Here is the link to the rules:

ncaa.com/content/di-principles-and-procedures-selection

If the NCAA was so insistent on getting Texas or UCLA in, then they should be in the play-in game (they should be there anyways).

It's not odd. The NCAA has explained several times before that there's an explicit exception in the event that Dayton is seeded to be in the play-in game. They have always known that it's a possibility and it's more important to stay true to the seeding than Dayton getting a home game in the play-in game. (Whether you personally agree with where Texas or UCLA got seeded is of no consequence.)

Frank's right. It has been discussed by the NCAA before. They decided they liked keeping these games in Dayton, even if the Flyers were playing.

Personally, I would just as soon they scrap First Four and scrap the games before 6pm Eastern and stretch the first two rounds over six days days instead of four. TV friendly (not so friendly to traveling fans I concede) but I think it would bring more TV value than the first four.

(03-16-2015 10:38 AM)bluesox Wrote:  They should play these games at the Indy pacers home, why dayton?

You mean Indy, the NCAA and headquarters. Anyways, Dayton from year one of the play-in game when it was just the two worst teams in the field, has always supported it well and they decided to keep it there.

(03-16-2015 10:34 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 10:21 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 10:11 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  It's totally unfair to Boise.

It would be more unfair to give a bye to Dayton if the committee determined that they didn't deserve it.

Look - I *personally* think that Dayton is better than both Texas and UCLA. However, that's irrelevant. Ultimately, the committee is the judge, jury and executioner with respect to the bracket. The committee should absolutely NOT take into consideration that Dayton is hosting the play-in game as to whether Dayton should be placed there. If the committee determines that Dayton should be seeded for the play-in game, then they should be placed there regardless of the location. Period.

Frank...they have always manipulated the numbers in the past. When they justified UCLA by using the "eye test" that was enough for me to say they could've bumped Dayton up a few spots.

Exactly. They select the teams and then seed them. Even if it came down to those schools, the seeding decision is a separate matter. And seeding is done with various factors in mind, including protecting the higher seeds. It's not like a true 1-68 ranking. It simply couldn't be due to the auto-bids in the first part, and some of the protocol in the second.

The same logic that gives Kentucky an easier trip to the Final Four and beyond (strongest 1 to weakest 1 in Final Four) should extend to Dayton's little predicament.

I know they love using Dayton's place for these games...I have to wonder if it wasn't purposeful by some to get a conversation about getting the campus arenas out of the game altogether.

(03-16-2015 10:34 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 10:21 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 10:11 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  It's totally unfair to Boise.

It would be more unfair to give a bye to Dayton if the committee determined that they didn't deserve it.

Look - I *personally* think that Dayton is better than both Texas and UCLA. However, that's irrelevant. Ultimately, the committee is the judge, jury and executioner with respect to the bracket. The committee should absolutely NOT take into consideration that Dayton is hosting the play-in game as to whether Dayton should be placed there. If the committee determines that Dayton should be seeded for the play-in game, then they should be placed there regardless of the location. Period.

Frank...they have always manipulated the numbers in the past. When they justified UCLA by using the "eye test" that was enough for me to say they could've bumped Dayton up a few spots.

It's true that there's some manipulation to ensure that conference-mates don't play in the early rounds, schools not playing at their own home sites, etc. The bracket isn't truly 1-through-68. However, having to be in the play-in game or not is a pretty big difference compared to being moved up or down a seed where whether you get a bye or not isn't affected. The decision of being one of the last 4 four at-larges (thus meaning that you have to play in the play-in game) ought to be locked in, just as the decision of the 4 #1-seeds should be locked in. You can have some variances in between, but the very top of the bracket and very bottom of the bracket should be well-defined and intractable. At least that's how I hope the committee is approaching things.

(03-16-2015 10:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Personally, I would just as soon they scrap First Four and scrap the games before 6pm Eastern and stretch the first two rounds over six days days instead of four. TV friendly (not so friendly to traveling fans I concede) but I think it would bring more TV value than the first four.

But that would create issues with player rest, travel, scheduling and academic issues because these are student ath--[busts out laughing]. I mean, you'd create issues with the players missing cla--LOL, and possibly flunking "tests."

But, "student-athlete" jibe aside, 6 days wouldn't work for a number of reasons or at the very least wouldn't go over well with administrators. The goal is to get a single site (minus the play-in round, that would be two rounds) done in 3 days or less.

(03-16-2015 12:01 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 10:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Personally, I would just as soon they scrap First Four and scrap the games before 6pm Eastern and stretch the first two rounds over six days days instead of four. TV friendly (not so friendly to traveling fans I concede) but I think it would bring more TV value than the first four.

But that would create issues with player rest, travel, scheduling and academic issues because these are student ath--[busts out laughing]. I mean, you'd create issues with the players missing cla--LOL, and possibly flunking "tests."

But, "student-athlete" jibe aside, 6 days wouldn't work for a number of reasons or at the very least wouldn't go over well with administrators. The goal is to get a single site (minus the play-in round, that would be two rounds) done in 3 days or less.

On top of that, those daytime games are probably more valuable than the nighttime games to TV, when you factor in who's watching and normal viewing during that time. Plus the first two days, specifically the afternoon games, are what give March madness it's feel. The ratings for the first four, which include two games that are not much different than 8/9 games, show that. Plus, the NCAA can never, ever F up the brackets. That is the free marketing they get that is probably with hundreds of millions of dollars in free advertising, that would shrink drastically if you removed the days between selection Sunday and the start of the main 64 team bracket

There are lots of things they can do to even this out.

They could make Dayton wear their road uniforms.
They could make Dayton shoot with their opposite hand.

The list is endless.

(03-16-2015 11:49 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The decision of being one of the last 4 four at-larges (thus meaning that you have to play in the play-in game) ought to be locked in, just as the decision of the 4 #1-seeds should be locked in. You can have some variances in between, but the very top of the bracket and very bottom of the bracket should be well-defined and intractable. At least that's how I hope the committee is approaching things.

What is also not being considered is if you move Dayton up a line, you are moving a team down a line to take their spot who had otherwise earned their spot.

besides the hoem court thing is overblown. I see very little difference between Dayton playing at home, versus say Villanova being allowed to play in the Wells Fargo Center, UCLS/USC being allowed to play in Staples, Arizona State being allowed to play in US Airways arena, UNC being allowed to play in the PNC Center, Butler being allowed to play in Bankers Life, or DePaul being allowed to play in the United Center (okay that last one was just for ish and giggles). I realize why the rule is there, because mileage limits would be artificial, but I see little difference in teams being able to play in an arena in their actual hometown (not just home state) and teams playing physically at home. The same home crowd advantages apply.

Plus women's teams are even required to play at home if they are hosting.

I have said before that Dayton got robbed by their seeding. They are a team light on depth meaning that extra game will hurt them, a sneaky way to derail a possible Cinderella.

The nice thing for Dayton is that if they do win their home game vs Boise, their following game would be an hour away in Columbus.

I think everyone here should root hard for their opponent in the next round...!!!

So it's not politics that Indiana, UCLA, LSU, Texas, and maybe some of the others are symbolically there, but moving Dayton around is? 7-10's are interchangeable, folks, but we'll quibble semantics about where UCLA and Texas deserve to be against Boise, BYU, Ole Miss, and Dayton? Ok...

Clear the whole 11 or 12 line and expand the darn thing to 70. If you didn't win your conference or the auto-bid, you should be open season for playing in. That's truly what an at-large is.