utchs81
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2011
- Messages
- 1,330
- Likes
- 1,799
I'd love to see someone more knowledgeable than me clarify, but I think it's got something to do with AQ teams versus at-large bids.
If you look at the bracket, the lowest seed you'll see an at-large team from a big conference be put in is about an 11. Seeds 12 - 16 seem "reserved" so to speak for automatically qualifying teams from weak conferences - they have to be placed in the tournament, but their schedules are so weak that you can't realistically seed them any higher than about a 12 - 13.
A team like UCLA, for example, wasn't very good but plays in a power conference. They were one of the last 4 in, but they don't get placed as a 16 seed because of strength of schedule. So within the play-in games, they've carve-out two "categories" of them so to speak - one for the AQ teams from mid-majors and one for power conference at-large teams who barely scraped into the tourney.
It is befuddling to me as to how a play to get in game is anything but a 16th seed. What is the thinking behind having one as a 16 and one as a 11. If I've asked this question before, forgive me, but I've forgotten the answer. As my dad use to say. "it's happening.
It is befuddling to me as to how a play to get in game is anything but a 16th seed. What is the thinking behind having one as a 16 and one as a 11. If I've asked this question before, forgive me, but I've forgotten the answer. As my dad use to say. "it's happening.
I would move the P5 down to 16 as well. everyone plays everyone in the big dance. so there isn't anything unfair in the match up imo.
When the field first expanded to 68 teams (I forget which year that was), the play in games were all for the 16 seeds. My guess is an influential television executive lobbied to have at least one play in game per night for a higher seed between teams with more national name recognition. TV drives the bus.
While I don't disagree with your general premise, the year they introduced the First Four (2011) the play-in games were for two 16s, a 12, and an 11. They played for various other seeds in subsequent years, although always involving a 16 and and 11. Since 2014 they appear to have standardized it where the games are for two 16s and two 11s.
Remember that famous Shaka Smart-led VCU run to the Final Four? They were an 11 seed that got in via a play-in game, and that occurred after they very controversially got an at-large bid. They were lucky that occurred for them right out of the box because, IMO, it game immediate legitimacy to what they were doing (queue conspiracy theories).
You might be thinking of 2001 when they first expanded the field to 65 teams. That did involve a play-in game for a 16 seed.
I'm personally waiting for the "we need to expand the tournament to 128 teams" talk to heat up again.
The expansion from 64 to 65 to 68 is a progression to eliminate the NIT and create a monopoly where a money pit is insufficient. The NIT used to be THE tournament so the NCAA expanded to 16/32/64 etc. The addition of 4 more at large teams makes the NIT a practice for next year.
The play in games were more than likely the brainchild of some office idiot that suggested such play-off games would eliminate all the squabble surrounding the bubble teams that got in that shouldn't, and the ones that didn't that should have. Didn't work. They still miss.
Unless you allow every D1 basketball school into a postseason tournament, there will always be controversy about bubble teams. And even if they allowed every single team in, there'd be controversies about seeding.
The NCAA knows this, and, IMO, it is part of the appeal of the tournament. Controversy creates debate and is great for ratings. Is anybody really going to stop watching the tournament or college basketball at large because a team got robbed? No. It's too entertaining.
man, if only there was some way the teams could play like 30 some odd games before the tournament. that would really let us figure out who was good and who wasn't. too bad such a thing doesn't exist....
I know you're being sarcastic, but in college athletics that bolded part will always be a partially subjective question. Especially when you are trying to explain why #68 got in and number #69 didn't.
I don't disagree. If a P5 team is one of the "last 4 in," then it stands to reason that they should be playing for a 16 seed, regardless of what schedule they played.
I know you're being sarcastic, but in college athletics that bolded part will always be a partially subjective question. Especially when you are trying to explain why #68 got in and number #69 didn't.
Team #68, 69 or whatever never has been and never will be a legitimate championship contender. That's the difference between football and basketball IMO. In football there might be years where there's a legitimate argument to be made for team #5 or 6. In basketball you're basically making an argument over who deserves to be a first round sacrificial lamb.