AUTOMATIC BIDS AND PLAY IN GAMES

[ConnMotors]

AUTOMATIC BIDS AND PLAY IN GAMES

Someone on one of the boards mentioned this and I have to totally agree. There are 32 automatic bids given out to Conference winners. Then you have fill the rest of the field and also four play in teams. Question which that person brought up is why are some of the lower automatic bid teams playing in the Play In Games? Valid question! To me that just isn't fair. Because they play in a low level conference they are being punished. Why not just make these teams 15 and 16 Seeds? They earned their chance to play in March Madness. But, they then get penalized by the NCAA Selection Committee. Why not have the Play in Games include teams that were on the Bubble? That's the way that it should be. I'm sure that many will disagree with this because you want the best teams playing. And I get that. But damn, these are teams that ranked in the middle of the pack of their conferences. Just my thought.

America East
American Athletic
Atlantic 10
Atlantic Coast
Atlantic Sun
Big 12
Big East
Big Sky
Big South
Big 10
Big West
Colonial Athletic
Conference USA
Horizon League
Ivy League
MAAC
MAC
MEAC
Missouri Valley
Mountain West
Northeast
Ohio Valley
Pac-12
Patriot League
SEC
Southern
Southland
SWAC
Summit League
Sun Belt
West Coast
WAC

 

[Plebe]

I really don't understand this argument at all.

The field is 68 teams. All 68 teams get ranked 1-68 and then seeded/bracketed accordingly.

What is that list of conferences supposed to represent? The Summit League was a one-bid league this year, but their representative is not a 16 seed, they're a 10 seed. The West Coast conference has 2 teams in the tournament, and they are seeded 6 and 9, not 16.

Teams are seeded by the quality of their resumes, as it should be. Seedings are not a form of charity or participation trophy.

 

[Rb335]

I really don't understand this argument at all.

The field is 68 teams. All 68 teams get ranked 1-68 and then seeded/bracketed accordingly.

What is that list of conferences supposed to represent? The Summit League was a one-bid league this year, but their representative is not a 16 seed, they're a 10 seed. The West Coast conference has 2 teams in the tournament, and they are seeded 6 and 9, not 16.

Teams are seeded by the quality of their resumes, as it should be. Seedings are not a form of charity or participation trophy.

The first four is the four lowest seeds when the teams are ranked 1-68 and then the lowest four at large bids. I think the argument is why isn’t it the lowest 8 seeded teams overall, or the lowest 8 at large bids?

I personally wish it was the lowest 8 seeded teams overall, which will generally come from automatic qualifiers of small conferences. That way you essentially free up four additional at large bids to elevate the talent level in the field of 64. (By eliminating four AQ teams prior to “round one”)

I also get that it’s unfair that the traditional rules were if you win your conference you get to the tournament. And now four teams who did that have to play their way in, with two not making the field of 64.

 

[TC22]

I don’t really understand the whole thing either but in Columbia last night Incarnate Word was 13-17 and 5th in their conference before they won their tournament. Howard was 21-9 and won their tournament. Maybe that’s why they were in the play-in game. im not sure what the big deal is. They are in the tournament. If they win they move on, just like everybody else. I do know those ladies were absolutely thrilled to be there and gushed about the experience.

 

[visitingcock]

AUTOMATIC BIDS AND PLAY IN GAMES

Someone on one of the boards mentioned this and I have to totally agree. There are 32 automatic bids given out to Conference winners. Then you have fill the rest of the field and also four play in teams. Question which that person brought up is why are some of the lower automatic bid teams playing in the Play In Games? Valid question! To me that just isn't fair. Because they play in a low level conference they are being punished. Why not just make these teams 15 and 16 Seeds? They earned their chance to play in March Madness. But, they then get penalized by the NCAA Selection Committee. Why not have the Play in Games include teams that were on the Bubble? That's the way that it should be. I'm sure that many will disagree with this because you want the best teams playing. And I get that. But damn, these are teams that ranked in the middle of the pack of their conferences. Just my thought.

America East
American Athletic
Atlantic 10
Atlantic Coast
Atlantic Sun
Big 12
Big East
Big Sky
Big South
Big 10
Big West
Colonial Athletic
Conference USA
Horizon League
Ivy League
MAAC
MAC
MEAC
Missouri Valley
Mountain West
Northeast
Ohio Valley
Pac-12
Patriot League
SEC
Southern
Southland
SWAC
Summit League
Sun Belt
West Coast
WAC

Here is the NET ranking of conferences. Note it is based on winning percentage against non-conference teams. Does the SWAC deserve an at-large with a winning percentage that is basically a one out of ten? Extreme example but look at all the conferences that win less than 33%.

I think the system is pretty fair.

SEC	1	141-31	0.8198
Pac-12	2	94-31	0.7520
Big 12	3	84-24	0.7778
ACC	4	121-38	0.7610
Big Ten	5	101-47	0.6824
American Athletic	6	85-44	0.6589
West Coast	7	61-44	0.5810
Big East	8	56-43	0.5657
Atlantic 10	9	102-66	0.6071
Missouri Valley	10	48-49	0.4948
Mid-American	11	51-45	0.5312
Conference USA	12	74-55	0.5736
Mountain West	13	51-55	0.4811
Colonial Athletic	14	52-42	0.5532
Ivy League	15	42-49	0.4615
The Summit League	16	41-49	0.4556
Big West	17	34-57	0.3736
Big Sky	18	29-55	0.3452
Ohio Valley	19	34-59	0.3656
Atlantic Sun	20	48-60	0.4444
Horizon League	21	25-42	0.3731
Sun Belt	22	54-62	0.4655
Patriot League	23	49-53	0.4804
Western Athletic	24	47-66	0.4159
MAAC	25	33-60	0.3548
America East	26	35-63	0.3571
Southern	27	26-72	0.2653
Big South	28	31-79	0.2818
Northeast	29	25-70	0.2632
MEAC	30	19-63	0.2317
SWAC	31	12-94	0.1132
Southland	32	15-53	0.2206

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

While I agree with the low ranking conferences, which have always been among the low ranking conferences, the winning percentage is skewed - numerous Power 5 teams play a smattering of really, really low level teams, and those low level conference teams often play at a Power 5 school for the sake of the payout. Some teams, at least historically, have played 5 or more games that they had not a smidgen of a chance to win.

As an example, and because I track it, of the lowest ranked 8 conferences (25-32):

Rutgers played 2 from the MAAC, 1 from the MEAC, 1 from the America East and 2 from the Northeast (NEC).

Arizona played 1 from the SWAC and 1 from the MAAC. They played 4 teams, 1 each, from the conferences ranked in the teens. Geography is a factor in who Arizona plays.