I feel like the 16 seeds shouldn't be sent to Dayton for the play-in games. IF you're Southern or Holy Cross, you did about as well as your program could ever expect, and you still may not make it to the real tournament.
Am I the only one who thinks that the First Four games should ALL be bubble teams fighting to get into the field of 64? Right now it looks like it would replace Holy Cross-Southern with VCU-Temple. (There might be a #11 at-large in the other half of the bracket, I'm saying right now.) That would be kind of an insult to the A-10 and AAC, having their tournament runner-ups in the play-in game. Next up would be Cincy and---UConn? Oh come on.
Maybe karma is telling me that my idea is bad.
I HATE the "play-in" games!! Go back to 64, or up to 96. (I know I'm the only one here in favor of the latter)
Not a fan of play in games in general, but the should only be for at-large teams. Not autobids.
(03-13-2016 05:57 PM)SubGod22 Wrote: [ -> ]Not a fan of play in games in general, but the should only be for at-large teams. Not autobids.
Agree totally!! I'd also exempt RS champs.
(03-13-2016 05:58 PM)Erictelevision Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2016 05:57 PM)SubGod22 Wrote: [ -> ]Not a fan of play in games in general, but the should only be for at-large teams. Not autobids.
Agree totally!! I'd also exempt RS champs.
I think Monmouth would much rather be in a play-in game than in the NIT, where they're going.
I actually don't mind the 16-16 games. Those teams aren't likely going to beat a 1 seed, but they can get a legit opportunity to walk away with a NCAA tourney win by playing in the 'first round'
Those 16s earned the right to go out and get to play against a team they normally wouldn't. You deprive them of the opportunity. Nobody really considers the play in games a part of the actual tournament.
I strongly agree that auto-bids should be exempt from play-in games.
I would do it the other way around: Rank the autobid teams 1-34, and put #27-34 in the "First Four" games.
But, we want to reward regular season conference champs, so there would be a rule that regular season champs who win autobids are automatically in the main field of 64.
I'd actually expand the tournament to 72 so every region has a 16-16 game and a play in game for the bottom at-large seed (usually an 11 or 12). For this year, this would likely give bids to the following teams: berths to Monmouth, South Carolina, Valparaiso, and St. Bonaventure. This would basically shift half of the automatic qualifiers seeded below the First Four ® teams down 1 seed line, and the two lowest 15 seeds would become 16 seeds and play an extra game.
2 conferences get a win share that they normally wouldn't.
(03-13-2016 07:50 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote: [ -> ]2 conferences get a win share that they normally wouldn't.
Exactly. The way the shares work now, I imagine the small conferences are actually in favor of keeping 2 First Four games for their own. That's 2 NCAA shares for the winner of those games, and for some of these schools, that's a huge difference financially.
(03-13-2016 05:40 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]I feel like the 16 seeds shouldn't be sent to Dayton for the play-in games. IF you're Southern or Holy Cross, you did about as well as your program could ever expect, and you still may not make it to the real tournament.
Am I the only one who thinks that the First Four games should ALL be bubble teams fighting to get into the field of 64? Right now it looks like it would replace Holy Cross-Southern with VCU-Temple. (There might be a #11 at-large in the other half of the bracket, I'm saying right now.) That would be kind of an insult to the A-10 and AAC, having their tournament runner-ups in the play-in game. Next up would be Cincy and---UConn? Oh come on.
Maybe karma is telling me that my idea is bad.
I'm of the opinion it should be one or the other. 16's or at-larges. Having both makes little sense.
(03-13-2016 08:20 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2016 05:40 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]I feel like the 16 seeds shouldn't be sent to Dayton for the play-in games. IF you're Southern or Holy Cross, you did about as well as your program could ever expect, and you still may not make it to the real tournament.
Am I the only one who thinks that the First Four games should ALL be bubble teams fighting to get into the field of 64? Right now it looks like it would replace Holy Cross-Southern with VCU-Temple. (There might be a #11 at-large in the other half of the bracket, I'm saying right now.) That would be kind of an insult to the A-10 and AAC, having their tournament runner-ups in the play-in game. Next up would be Cincy and---UConn? Oh come on.
Maybe karma is telling me that my idea is bad.
I'm of the opinion it should be one or the other. 16's or at-larges. Having both makes little sense.
Eh, You can't really do both without really hurting the value of your 64 team tournament
Putting 8 automatic qualifers in the games creates 8 16 seeds, and really makes life extremely difficult for the low major conferences. It sort of dilutes the value of being a champion from one of those leagues. It also really hurts the value of the First Four event financially because fewer people are going to tune in to watch 2 days of 8 small majors playing each other.
Putting the low 8 at large there actually hurts the way you seed At large teams because that means you've got 2 16 seeds who have to become 15 seeds, and so on and so forth until you've filled the small conference teams. Probably makes the game a battle between 10 and 9 seeds, which doesn't help matters because the whole point of a 7-10 and 8-9 game is that there is supposed to be minimal difference between the seeds to begin with, creating better games. It also creates the possibility that the NCAA overdoes the First Four event itself, and probably is one step from actually having a 96 team tournament.
The current format is probably the best for all concerned. Offers a doubleheader each day featuring an early game between two low majors fighting for the right to play a top shelf program, and two at large's fighting for a chance to prove they belong in the dance.
A 96 team field doesn't break my heart.
People may not want to watch but it'd make for a better Tournament if the 16's offed themselves. And teams like Holy Cross, which sucked all year but got hot at the right time and, in general, the HBCU's which rarely produce teams good enough to compete, could knock each off and we'd have a better chance of a 1 getting a good game from a 16.
96 teams is too many. I could see the argument for 72 teams. Where the bottom 6 autobids duke it out and the bottom 10 at-larges duke it out for the right to be in the main 64 team tournament. That would have the benefit of watching 3 16-seeds win a game in the tournament. It would also have more of these bubble teams have to really earn it. Michigan probably did just enough to make the play-in game which they did. Syracuse in my opinion this season should have been in a similar position making a play-in game.
The 16-16 is a favor to the 16 seeds, not the opposite. It gives them a chance to do something positive instead of their only exposure being run off the court by UNC's second team.
you could do the 4 play ins for all 4, 11 seeds. You could do 10s too and make it 72 team tourney. I think all 16 seeds should have to play a 1. I don't like adding a win to a 16 seed for beating another on the wiki tourney page, but the NCAA counts it as a tourney win.