The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(03-17-2015 04:58 PM)Shrack Wrote:  I think what annoys me the most is that 3 of the 7 at-large teams are all play-in games. And 7 of 8 play-ins are non-P5s. The bias in putting the P5 bubble teams firmly in the field and then screwing the non power schools was a little too obvious. If Ole Miss wins their game against BYU, the non power schools will only have 5 actual at large in the field. 2nd worst in a decade.

The 16-seed play-in games always will be and should be non-P5 schools. You still have a point that it's 3 of 4 at-large play-in games feature non-P5 schools.

(03-17-2015 05:32 PM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 04:58 PM)Shrack Wrote:  I think what annoys me the most is that 3 of the 7 at-large teams are all play-in games. And 7 of 8 play-ins are non-P5s. The bias in putting the P5 bubble teams firmly in the field and then screwing the non power schools was a little too obvious. If Ole Miss wins their game against BYU, the non power schools will only have 5 actual at large in the field. 2nd worst in a decade.

There are no "play in" games. It's round one. You are in the NCAA tournament and it counts as an NCAA tournament appearance and win or loss. We are actually playing in round two Thursday. Round three is Saturday.

Doesn't matter what it says or how it is classified. It isn't a real game in terms of the actual bracket. Yes, it counts as an NCAA tourney win or loss, but you're playing for a chance to get into the field. You're not in the actual bracket unless you win. You don't see people picking the winners of the play-in games on their brackets. Two teams cannot share the same spot.

So yes, there are "play in" games. If CUSA got 8 at large bids and all got in as play-in matchups, they would still only have a guaranteed 4 teams in the actual field. You didn't get 8 teams into the field of 64.

There are not 6 16 seeds. There are only 4.

(03-17-2015 05:17 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  It looks to me that with a few exceptions (11 in 2012, 3 in 2009) it has been pretty consistent.

I also hear people complain about them matching up two midmajors against each other and claim that this is their way to limit the number of mid majors advancing. No one considers that they are also assuring that at least one mid major will advance when they match them up against each other.

The powers that be want one Cinderella for the storyline, but hate two Cinderellas such as when VCU played Butler in a Final Four game in 2011.

(03-17-2015 05:32 PM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 04:58 PM)Shrack Wrote:  I think what annoys me the most is that 3 of the 7 at-large teams are all play-in games. And 7 of 8 play-ins are non-P5s. The bias in putting the P5 bubble teams firmly in the field and then screwing the non power schools was a little too obvious. If Ole Miss wins their game against BYU, the non power schools will only have 5 actual at large in the field. 2nd worst in a decade.

There are no "play in" games. It's round one (Sometimes called first four). You are in the NCAA tournament and it counts as an NCAA tournament appearance and win or loss. We are actually playing in round two (sometimes called round of 64) Thursday. Round three is Saturday. (Sometimes called round of 32 or final 32).

I assume this will make further expansion easier.

BTW we hung an NCAA banner last time. Not a "play in" banner.

I think the NCAA finally stopped calling them Round 2 games because no one called them that. They don't call them Round 1 games either and they don't call them play in games. I think you are right that it is officially the Round of 64.

(03-17-2015 05:37 PM)HSV_BLAZER Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 04:58 PM)Shrack Wrote:  I think what annoys me the most is that 3 of the 7 at-large teams are all play-in games. And 7 of 8 play-ins are non-P5s. The bias in putting the P5 bubble teams firmly in the field and then screwing the non power schools was a little too obvious. If Ole Miss wins their game against BYU, the non power schools will only have 5 actual at large in the field. 2nd worst in a decade.

The 16-seed play-in games always will be and should be non-P5 schools. You still have a point that it's 3 of 4 at-large play-in games feature non-P5 schools.

Understandable, but they still use these games to squeeze more bids for the P5 teams. The P5 + Big East have 35 bids this year and a chance for 34 or 35 (depending on if Ole Miss loses) in the round of 64. Everyone else has 33 bids and a chance for 29 or 30 in the round of 64.

2 conferences shouldn't be fighting for the same bid IMO. An autobid is an autobid. Kind of garbage.

Think about that. 35 bids for 75 schools. 47% chance you get into the tournament if you play in a power conference.

(03-17-2015 06:11 PM)Shrack Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 05:37 PM)HSV_BLAZER Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 04:58 PM)Shrack Wrote:  I think what annoys me the most is that 3 of the 7 at-large teams are all play-in games. And 7 of 8 play-ins are non-P5s. The bias in putting the P5 bubble teams firmly in the field and then screwing the non power schools was a little too obvious. If Ole Miss wins their game against BYU, the non power schools will only have 5 actual at large in the field. 2nd worst in a decade.

The 16-seed play-in games always will be and should be non-P5 schools. You still have a point that it's 3 of 4 at-large play-in games feature non-P5 schools.

Understandable, but they still use these games to squeeze more bids for the P5 teams. The P5 + Big East have 35 bids this year and a chance for 34 or 35 (depending on if Ole Miss loses) in the round of 64. Everyone else has 33 bids and a chance for 29 or 30 in the round of 64.

2 conferences shouldn't be fighting for the same bid IMO. An autobid is an autobid. Kind of garbage.

They aren't fighting for a bid. They are both in the tournament. If anything is unfair, it's Dayton getting a home game.

Shrack, they are in the tournament. They are not fighting to get in. That is just how the first round is playing out. in a few years more teams will be added. You can bank on that too.


If we were not in you better call UAB and have them remove the 2011 NCAA tournament banner. Let me know how it goes.

I hated being in a play in game but it's still a your tournament appearance and we were still able to a raise a banner for it. Hopefully we will never have to play in another one but it's better than sitting at home or playing in a lesser tourney.

(03-17-2015 06:15 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 06:11 PM)Shrack Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 05:37 PM)HSV_BLAZER Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 04:58 PM)Shrack Wrote:  I think what annoys me the most is that 3 of the 7 at-large teams are all play-in games. And 7 of 8 play-ins are non-P5s. The bias in putting the P5 bubble teams firmly in the field and then screwing the non power schools was a little too obvious. If Ole Miss wins their game against BYU, the non power schools will only have 5 actual at large in the field. 2nd worst in a decade.

The 16-seed play-in games always will be and should be non-P5 schools. You still have a point that it's 3 of 4 at-large play-in games feature non-P5 schools.

Understandable, but they still use these games to squeeze more bids for the P5 teams. The P5 + Big East have 35 bids this year and a chance for 34 or 35 (depending on if Ole Miss loses) in the round of 64. Everyone else has 33 bids and a chance for 29 or 30 in the round of 64.

2 conferences shouldn't be fighting for the same bid IMO. An autobid is an autobid. Kind of garbage.

They aren't fighting for a bid. They are both in the tournament. If anything is unfair, it's Dayton getting a home game.

Yes, you get a tournament bid, but this is arguing semantics.

If a bracket looks like:

1. SEC team
2. ACC team
3. B12 team
4. PAC team
5. A10 team
6. BE team
7. MVC team

8. CUSA / CUSA / CUSA / CUSA

and then in this 8 slot you've got this other bracket where 4 CUSA teams compete to get into that final slot, you didn't get 4 teams into an 8 slot field. You got one. And if that slot looks like a CUSA team playing AAC team, well, you got in one...maybe if you win the game. It's rigged before the tournament even begins. Telling conferences they get a guaranteed team into the tournament and then having them play a little extra tournament with all the other bad teams to see who gets in the 64 round is crap..all while giving their old auto bid slots a few seeds down (before play-in games) to "more deserving" teams.

(03-17-2015 06:21 PM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  Shrack, they are in the tournament. They are not fighting to get in. That is just how the first round is playing out. in a few years more teams will be added. You can bank on that too.


If we were not in you better call UAB and have them remove the 2011 NCAA tournament banner. Let me know how it goes.

I'm not arguing they're not in the tournament. I'm arguing that it is crap and it is used to get more P5 teams in the field while being all "hey, all of you autobid guys got in the tournament so be happy about it!" but giving them overall less bids in the round of 64.

Gambling (brackets) has nothing to do it. The NCAA does not care what the gambling bracket looks like.

(03-17-2015 06:24 PM)Shrack Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 06:15 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 06:11 PM)Shrack Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 05:37 PM)HSV_BLAZER Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 04:58 PM)Shrack Wrote:  I think what annoys me the most is that 3 of the 7 at-large teams are all play-in games. And 7 of 8 play-ins are non-P5s. The bias in putting the P5 bubble teams firmly in the field and then screwing the non power schools was a little too obvious. If Ole Miss wins their game against BYU, the non power schools will only have 5 actual at large in the field. 2nd worst in a decade.

The 16-seed play-in games always will be and should be non-P5 schools. You still have a point that it's 3 of 4 at-large play-in games feature non-P5 schools.

Understandable, but they still use these games to squeeze more bids for the P5 teams. The P5 + Big East have 35 bids this year and a chance for 34 or 35 (depending on if Ole Miss loses) in the round of 64. Everyone else has 33 bids and a chance for 29 or 30 in the round of 64.

2 conferences shouldn't be fighting for the same bid IMO. An autobid is an autobid. Kind of garbage.

They aren't fighting for a bid. They are both in the tournament. If anything is unfair, it's Dayton getting a home game.

Yes, you get a tournament bid, but this is arguing semantics.

If a bracket looks like:

1. SEC team
2. ACC team
3. B12 team
4. PAC team
5. A10 team
6. BE team
7. MVC team

8. CUSA / CUSA / CUSA / CUSA

and then in this 8 slot you've got this other bracket where 4 CUSA teams compete to get into that final slot, you didn't get 4 teams into an 8 slot field. You got one. And if that slot looks like a CUSA team playing AAC team, well, you got in one...maybe if you win the game. It's rigged before the tournament even begins. Telling conferences they get a guaranteed team into the tournament and then having them play a little extra tournament with all the other bad teams to see who gets in the 64 round is crap..all while giving their old auto bid slots a few seeds down (before play-in games) to "more deserving" teams.

I'll try to fathom this scenario where 4 CUSA teams are in later, but there are 68 teams in the tournament. There is no way you can fit 68 teams in a 64 team round. It is not a 64 team tournament, so stop trying to make it one. You don't hear complaints about teams not being included in the round of 32. Someone has to play the extra game. In previous years, a lot of P5's played on Tuesday. This year it is mostly non P5's.

As for the 16 seeds, half of them can claim something a lot of teams can't claim. A win in the tournament. Some may discount that win, but I bet those teams don't.

(03-17-2015 06:43 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 06:24 PM)Shrack Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 06:15 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 06:11 PM)Shrack Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 05:37 PM)HSV_BLAZER Wrote:  The 16-seed play-in games always will be and should be non-P5 schools. You still have a point that it's 3 of 4 at-large play-in games feature non-P5 schools.

Understandable, but they still use these games to squeeze more bids for the P5 teams. The P5 + Big East have 35 bids this year and a chance for 34 or 35 (depending on if Ole Miss loses) in the round of 64. Everyone else has 33 bids and a chance for 29 or 30 in the round of 64.

2 conferences shouldn't be fighting for the same bid IMO. An autobid is an autobid. Kind of garbage.

They aren't fighting for a bid. They are both in the tournament. If anything is unfair, it's Dayton getting a home game.

Yes, you get a tournament bid, but this is arguing semantics.

If a bracket looks like:

1. SEC team
2. ACC team
3. B12 team
4. PAC team
5. A10 team
6. BE team
7. MVC team

8. CUSA / CUSA / CUSA / CUSA

and then in this 8 slot you've got this other bracket where 4 CUSA teams compete to get into that final slot, you didn't get 4 teams into an 8 slot field. You got one. And if that slot looks like a CUSA team playing AAC team, well, you got in one...maybe if you win the game. It's rigged before the tournament even begins. Telling conferences they get a guaranteed team into the tournament and then having them play a little extra tournament with all the other bad teams to see who gets in the 64 round is crap..all while giving their old auto bid slots a few seeds down (before play-in games) to "more deserving" teams.

I'll try to fathom this scenario where 4 CUSA teams are in later, but there are 68 teams in the tournament. There is no way you can fit 68 teams in a 64 team round. It is not a 64 team tournament, so stop trying to make it one. You don't hear complaints about teams not being included in the round of 32. Someone has to play the extra game. In previous years, a lot of P5's played on Tuesday. This year it is mostly non P5's.

As for the 16 seeds, half of them can claim something a lot of teams can't claim. A win in the tournament. Some may discount that win, but I bet those teams don't.

I'm trying to exaggerate the scenario to show the point.

More non P5s have played those higher than 16 seed extra games than P5s, and there are already less non P5s in the tournament to boot anyways. If there were no play-in games, the P5 would get less teams in the tournament and the non P5 would probably stay the same. I'm not sure how else to explain that.

If you have a bracket like this years before:

P5
P5
P5
P5
Non P5
Non P5
Non P5
Non P5

and then it turns into this:

P5
P5
P5
P5
P5
P5
Non P5 / Non P5
Non P5 / Non P5

You're getting screwed.

edit: It's not necessarily screwing the mid/high mid major teams, but they have definitely screwed the lower conferences.

The argument against the play in games have always been that they were created to allow more P5’s in.

2011 was the first year they expanded to 68 and added at larges to the first four. Since then, the non P5's at larges have a slight edge, but not overwhelming edge. There have been 8 power five teams and 12 non power 5 teams. Last year, three power 5 teams played in the first four and only one non power 5. This year it is reversed.

As far as your example above, you are still trying to make it a 64 team tournament. It's not. It is 68 teams. Someone has to play extra games.

And if you are talking about the 16 seeds, I don't know what to tell you. In a 68 team tournament, they are going to play the extra game.

Thought this thread was about Dazon Ingram decommiting from Bama?

It evolved.

(03-17-2015 08:03 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  Thought this thread was about Dazon Ingram decommiting from Bama?

It stayed in track longer than most threads

Did Dazon purchase stadium certificates?

(03-17-2015 08:04 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  It evolved.

Don't you mean devolved

(03-17-2015 08:30 PM)the_blazerman Wrote:  Did Dazon purchase stadium certificates?

What's his per capita spending on students?

Watching BYU vs Ole Miss two 11 seeds going at it. Not two teams playing for an 11 seed.

It's a 68 team field. What was this thread about?

BTW they just called ( and showed graphic) the next game the second round on the CBS / Tru Tv broadcast. Wonder why?