Don't understand the play in games.

[superjohn]

I'm clueless as to why these games were added. The NCAA was perfect as is, no need to mess with it. The thing I really don't understand about the playt in games is that the teams picked to play in these get a huge advantage over the other teams that barely made it in. A 16 has never beaten a 1, the play in winners don't have to worry about that because they don't play the #1. It just seems like such an unfair advantage to me. So a team like Iona will get to play Marquette instead of say Kentucky in Kentucky or UNC in North Carolina, seems strange to me. What am I missing here?

 

[upstater]

I'm clueless as to why these games were added. The NCAA was perfect as is, no need to mess with it. The thing I really don't understand about the playt in games is that the teams picked to play in these get a huge advantage over the other teams that barely made it in. A 16 has never beaten a 1, the play in winners don't have to worry about that because they don't play the #1. It just seems like such an unfair advantage to me. So a team like Iona will get to play Marquette instead of say Kentucky in Kentucky or UNC in North Carolina, seems strange to me. What am I missing here?

At-Large teams were never intended to be 16 seeds. The 16s were reserved for the really weak minor conference champions. I don't mind the extra seeds if it means we hear less moaning but I don't want to ever see it get to 96.

 

[Fishy]

If you don't see the appeal in these games, I can't help you.

This is bonus basketball on a night where I'd be scrounging to watch an NIT game.

I didn't see the point originally, but this is working out really well.

 

[junglehusky]

Well the first play in game came because of the WAC/MWC split, right? The power 6 / BCS conferences didn't want their bubble teams to lose an at-large slot when another autobid was created.

 

[patrick]

I'm with you fishy
This is bonus basketball!

 

[ConnHuskBask]

I don't get it. It was perfect at 64/65.

If you want basketball on a Tuesday nite check out the NIT or NBA. These games are meaningless.

 

[patrick]

I don't get it. It was perfect at 64/65.

If you want basketball on a Tuesday nite check out the NIT or NBA. These games are meaningless.

Tell that to the BYU cheerleaders ;-)

 

[selles]

If you don't see the appeal in these games, I can't help you.

This is bonus basketball on a night where I'd be scrounging to watch an NIT game.

I didn't see the point originally, but this is working out really well.

Yes, those were two very fun games to watch. I've always been a strident opponent of expanding the tourney. But if expansion means we get 4 or 8 games tonight instead of a 4 week tourney...I'm willing to listen. Nothing really beats tournament ball.

 

[Fishy]

I don't want to see them go to 96 - there is an awful lot of chaff in that wheat - but adding in, basically, four additional at-large teams and making the bottom eight face off doesn't kill anyone.

We got two excellent tournament-quality games tonight and two pretty appealing games tomorrow.

It's ducky.

 

[NOTaDIME]

Tell that to VCU...first team ever to win five games to get to the final four. If these games harbor final four teams I'm all for them.

 

[dogpause]

It amazes me that the NCAA can decisively choose 62 teams , and even place them in correct order, but somehow they can't decide who the 63rd and 64th best teams are?

OTOH, it's nice to have a game on Tuesday. Nicer still that Western Kentucky will be riding a high when it plays a home game against the #1 team.

 

[Prezidint]

What am I missing here?

Mostly, grey matter.

 

[upstater]

It amazes me that the NCAA can decisively choose 62 teams , and even place them in correct order, but somehow they can't decide who the 63rd and 64th best teams are?

OTOH, it's nice to have a game on Tuesday. Nicer still that Western Kentucky will be riding a high when it plays a home game against the #1 team.

But again, that's not the problem. The problem is that there are so many small conferences taking up autobids that potentially you might have a team that goes 9-9 in the BE left out of the mix.

I remember a UConn team getting sent to the NIT about a decade ago when their record and RPI indicated they should have been in over some at-larges. Presumably that UConn team gets in today because the autobid teams are taking up less space.

 

[Inyatkin]

I still don't get why one early game is for a 14-seed and one is for a 12-seed. If these are the last four at-large teams, wouldn't they all be, say, 13-seeds? And what about the actual 13 seeds? It seems arbitrary, but I'm sure there's an explanation.

 

[freescooter]

I still don't get why one early game is for a 14-seed and one is for a 12-seed. If these are the last four at-large teams, wouldn't they all be, say, 13-seeds? And what about the actual 13 seeds? It seems arbitrary, but I'm sure there's an explanation.

This is the part I don't quite get. You would think if you are the "last 4" at large teams, you would be all the same seed, say all 13s or all 12s. Otherwise it seems kind of strange. Personally, I don't think minor conference champs should be relegated to this game ever. They did what they needed to do to earn a berth. Give them a damned berth. Some major conference team that finished at the mid point of its conference clearly didn't. Or some team from a smaller conference that is getting an at-large bid because they blew their league tourney (Iona for example), those are the teams that should be playing in the 1st round.

 

[aceboon]

This is the part I don't quite get. You would think if you are the "last 4" at large teams, you would be all the same seed, say all 13s or all 12s. Otherwise it seems kind of strange. Personally, I don't think minor conference champs should be relegated to this game ever. They did what they needed to do to earn a berth. Give them a damned berth. Some major conference team that finished at the mid point of its conference clearly didn't. Or some team from a smaller conference that is getting an at-large bid because they blew their league tourney (Iona for example), those are the teams that should be playing in the 1st round.

Agree with this, it should be all at large teams, not teams that won their conference tourney.

 

[ddminct]

I have no problem having a team with a losing record despite winning their conference tournament playing in these games. I actually agree with Bilas and do away with the auto bids and just have the best 64 make it.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

 

[tzznandrew]

But again, that's not the problem. The problem is that there are so many small conferences taking up autobids that potentially you might have a team that goes 9-9 in the BE left out of the mix.

I remember a UConn team getting sent to the NIT about a decade ago when their record and RPI indicated they should have been in over some at-larges. Presumably that UConn team gets in today because the autobid teams are taking up less space.

Is it the 2000-01 team you are thinking of?

They finished the regular season at 19-11 (taking out Chaminade). They lost to Dayton without Butler, who was their best player, so the NCAA would likely have looked at them as 19-10.

v. RPI Top 25
2-4
Wins: H-Arizona (3), H- BC (8)
Losses: R-BC (8), R-Syracuse (21), N-Syracuse (21), R-Texas (12)

v. RPI 26-50
2-1
Wins: H-Notre Dame (26), H-Providence (39)
Losses: R-Providence (39)

v. RPI 51-100
4-6
Wins: H-Pitt (51), H-St. John's (69), H-Miami (84), R-UMass (66)
Losses: R-Miami (84), H-Villanova (53), R-Villanova (53), N-Dayton (64),* R-St. John's (69), R-Seton Hall (70)

That's 4 Top 50 RPI wins against 5 losses (although all the wins are at home...)
And that's 8-11 against the RPI Top 100 (not terrible, and a road win is in there!).

This teams had 6 wins against sub-200 teams, one of which was sub-300 (Quinnipiac).

But that team would probably be in this tournament--I mean, NC State is in going 0-8 against the RPI Top 25. And those road losses would have hurt less (although home wins helped less as well).

 

[HuskyBballFan]

I have no problem having a team with a losing record despite winning their conference tournament playing in these games. I actually agree with Bilas and do away with the auto bids and just have the best 64 make it.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

There would be quite the ripple effect for smaller schools if you no longer included automatic qualifiers. It would become even harder for those schools to recruit - for example, I'm sure plenty of players would rather play 10 minutes per game at Notre Dame or Stanford and have a chance at playing in the tournament than play 35 minutes per game at Davidson or Yale and have virtually no chance of ever playing in the tournament.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

There would be quite the ripple effect for smaller schools if you no longer included automatic qualifiers. It would become even harder for those schools to recruit - for example, I'm sure plenty of players would rather play 10 minutes per game at Notre Dame or Stanford and have a chance at playing in the tournament than play 35 minutes per game at Davidson or Yale and have virtually no chance of ever playing in the tournament.

Secondly, one of the criticisms of the tournament is that "the best team rarely wins" which is obviously true since these are all single elimination games played on neutral courts. Taking away the auto-bids would only make the tournament more of a crapshoot, especially since it would no longer be preposterous for a #1 seed to lose to a #16 seed. Michigan State could be playing Pittsburgh in the first round instead of LIU.

 

[EricLA]

i think the play in games are a great idea. gives teams a chance to play in the NCAA's that normally woulda gone to the nit. at first i didn't get why the play in wasn't the 16 seed teams, but then realized that some of the AQ's are truly 16 seeds so if you have at large teams who are better than Prarie View, or whatever, you have to have them vying for the 14 seed.

 

[freescooter]

I have no problem having a team with a losing record despite winning their conference tournament playing in these games. I actually agree with Bilas and do away with the auto bids and just have the best 64 make it.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

I absolutewly don't agree with that. Because of the system used to rank teams smaller conferences would have absolutely no change...none of ever getting bids. No way a Central Connecticut or LIU would get one short of going undefeated, and maybe not even then. Bilas is a flunky for the big conferences and if he had his way we'd basically cut out all the small leagues. But if you see what a bid means to guys from a Central connecticut or talk to a coach from someplace like BU about it, you'd get how great it is that every D-1 team in the country has a shot at the tourney...they probably won't win, but they get their shot. Take that away and replace LIU and Vermont with the 10th place Big East team and the 7th place big 10 team, neither of whom did what they should have given their level of resources, and you'll not only take something away from the tournament, but you'll reward mediocrity in the big conferences even more than it already is. I mean really, if you can't even finish in the top HALF of your league, you might argue that you don't really belong playing for the national championship...