play-in games

#1

utchs81

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Messages
433
Likes
307
#1
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.
 
#2

Kinger

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
335
Likes
443
#2
I don't know the reasons either. Seems to me like the bottom 8 teams in the tournament would play to see who the four 16 seeds would be. I think it puts the 6th seed at a possible disadvantage since they don't know who the 11 seed will be until 2 days before the game. Other teams have 4-5 days to prepare for their first round opponent. I am assuming that the 1 seeds will always beat the 16s so it doesn't matter how much time they get to game plan.
 
#3

LouderVol

Last of XVI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
19,990
Likes
7,928
#3
the reasoning is what doesn't make sense to me. It makes sense that 16 is the play in game, if you have to have play in games in the first place. doesn't make sense that an 11 seed doesn't know if they are good enough or not. really seems if they want to do this there are only 2 play in games. winner gets 11 seed, loser gets 16. everyone knows who is in, and it makes sense why one would be higher than the other.
 
#4

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
6,715
Likes
3,752
#4
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.
 
#5

LouderVol

Last of XVI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
19,990
Likes
7,928
#5
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.
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.
 
#6

BowlBrother85

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2013
Messages
12,119
Likes
14,134
#6
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.
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.
 
#8
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
21,553
Likes
17,994
#8
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’s senseless. It’s just a money grab.
 
#9

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
6,715
Likes
3,752
#9
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.
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.
 
#10

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
6,715
Likes
3,752
#10
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. :)
 
Last edited:
#11

BowlBrother85

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2013
Messages
12,119
Likes
14,134
#11
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. :)
Right... When they first expanded above 64 teams, to 65, was in 2001 and from 2001-2010 the play in game was for one of the 16 seeds (to play the #1 overall seed in the tournament). When they expanded to 68 teams in 2011, I believe it was at the insistence of television that not all four play in games be for the 16 seed.
 
#13

OrangeByBirth

Volunteer Fan
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
3,674
Likes
2,962
#13
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.
 
#14

GVF

Absolut Orange
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
3,119
Likes
377
#14
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.

Keep it simple. Reduce the field. Each conference sends 3 teams. The regular season champ. The tourney champ. And a conference at large, being the next highest ranked conference team.
 
#15

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
6,715
Likes
3,752
#15
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 NIT hasn't been "the" tournament since the 1950s, and has been totally irrelevant since the 1970s.

The NCAA runs the NIT now anyway, so a desire to keep the NIT intact wouldn't keep them from expanding the NCAA Tournament. A 128-team field would essentially be a smashing together of both tournaments, plus 28 more teams.

I can see this happening one day, but it would take some serious tweaking of the calendar.
 
#16

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
6,715
Likes
3,752
#16
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.
 
#17

LouderVol

Last of XVI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
19,990
Likes
7,928
#17
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....
 
#18

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
6,715
Likes
3,752
#18
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.
 
#20

LouderVol

Last of XVI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
19,990
Likes
7,928
#20
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.
create a method and stick to it. the issue is the subjectivity. if its the best 64, 65 is left out. if its the best 32, 33 gets left out. usually the best way to avoid complications is in fact to just make things simpler and not worry about who got left out.
 
#21

Roustabout

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
9,484
Likes
5,645
#21
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.
Not necessarily. You've got auto bids from nothing conferences. Just because they are automatic doesn't mean they are better than an at-large.
 
#22

MyBloodRunnethOrange

Certified VN Addict
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Messages
81,852
Likes
12,073
#22
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.
 
#24

05_never_again

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
6,715
Likes
3,752
#24
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.
Tell that to VCU in 2011. Yes, extreme case, and you are right about the 16 seed being purely a sacrificial lamb. But a lot of these 11 seeds that get in via the play-in game are capable of making runs and impacting the tournament.
 


VN Store

Sponsors
 

Top