Play in games or first round

[DenverSooner]

Why do they make a 12 seed and 11 seed have a play in game? It seems to me the 16 seeds should have to do that.

Does anyone know the rational behind this?

 

[garyeb2]

Why do they make a 12 seed and 11 seed have a play in game? It seems to me the 16 seeds should have to do that.

Does anyone know the rational behind this?

Isn't it the last four at large teams have to play to get in and the weakest four auto qualifiers play to get in?

 

[MNsooner]

They wanted to expand the field because the NCAA tournament is so popular, but they also knew fans wouldn't tune into watch a game to find out which 16 seed will lose in the next round.

 

[badger]

Why do they make a 12 seed and 11 seed have a play in game? It seems to me the 16 seeds should have to do that.

Does anyone know the rational behind this?

16-seeds are always (usually) mid-majors. To force more mid-majors to play-in may be deemed unfair in what is supposed to be a showcase of the best teams from around the country with representatives in every conference.

At the same time, it's undeniable that quality major conference teams are left out to ensure that the mid-majors each get one bid, so they found a way to get a few more of those in.

Without the "First Four," two of those at-large teams would have been relegated to the NIT. So, it's hard to complain if you don't know which side of the in/out wall you were on.

So, the burden of playing-in is split between four mid-major conference champions for the 16-seed, and four at-larges. I think it's fair. Plus, "First Four" teams have made the Sweet 16 two of the three first years they've had it

 

[sperry]

Isn't it the last four at large teams have to play to get in and the weakest four auto qualifiers play to get in?

Yep. It's a stupid system in general, but I think the way they handle it is pretty fair.

 

[Zimwillett]

I hate that the NCAA insists on referring to these games as the "first round".

 

[sperry]

I hate that the NCAA insists on referring to these games as the "first round".

Yep, me too.

 

[JBaker]

I think it should be for only at-large teams.

It seems unfair that a conference champion has to play another game to get into the "real" tournament.

They call it the "first round" to try and mask the fact that everybody knows this isn't really part of the tournament.

 

[WaymanFan]

Actually, it makes some sense. They make the worst four teams play the "first round" as well as the "last four in". I would have just as well kept it at 64 which would make it harder to get in as an at-large. When they expanded it to 64 in 1985, there just didn't seem to be a reason to tinker with it after that. I realize they added more conferences and didn't want to punish the at-large, but I still liked it at 64.

 

[BoulderSooner]

It is the real tourney

 

[DenverSooner]

16-seeds are always (usually) mid-majors.

I always thought of Mid Majors as Tulsa, Butler, Gonzaga, Creighton, Wichita State, Dayton, etc. In other words teams that often win games in the NCAA Tournament. I personally don't think of 16 seeds as mid-majors. Those teams never win and typically couldn't compete in conferences like the Missouri Valley or C-USA.

 

[coolm]

Just double the field of 64. It only adds one more round. If we can't get everyone in with 128 spots then we need to stop the tournament.

 

[Sawyer]

I think it should be for only at-large teams.

It seems unfair that a conference champion has to play another game to get into the "real" tournament.

Agree with this. No automatic qualifier should have to go through the play-in process. The best thing many of those kids can hope for (athletically) is a shot at taking down a major program in the first round. The play-in game denies those kids of an opportunity they earned. It's BS.

I also would hate to see the tournament expanded. And I say that as a fan of a team that would make it this year under those conditions. It dilutes the field with teams that haven't earned it. It's big enough as it is.

IMO, the play-in games ("first round") should be the bottom eight at-large teams with no exception.

 

[JBaker]

It is the real tourney

Technically yes. But nobody considers it as such. I've watched maybe a combined 10 minutes of the "first round." Tomorrow and Friday I'll be watching 10 hours a day.

 

[badger]

I always thought of Mid Majors as Tulsa, Butler, Gonzaga, Creighton, Wichita State, Dayton, etc. In other words teams that often win games in the NCAA Tournament.

Mid-minors, then?