I've changed my mind about the play-in game. | The Boneyard

I've changed my mind about the play-in game.

Palatine

Palatine

Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
28,472
Reaction Score
76,006
Thought it was dumb and waste at first. But it gives these kids a chance to win a game in the NCAA and they play like it. They take it seriously, there are real consequences to the play in-game. It is so much better than the lamb to slaughter first round mismatch. They go into the regular field with a little confidence and swagger. And they get to go home feeling great after their NCAA experience. There is really no downside.
 
Palatine said:
Thought it was dumb and waste at first. But it gives these kids a chance to win a game in the NCAA and they play like it. They take it seriously, there are real consequences to the play in-game. It is so much better than the lamb to slaughter first round mismatch. They go into the regular field with a little confidence and swagger. And they get to go home feeling great after their NCAA experience. There is really no downside.
Expand ...

I agree, except this logic can be used to expand the field even further: "why not more confidence, more swagger??". At a certain point, it will really water down the whole thing. I dont know what that point is, but i think we're at a decent place right now, and i dont think any further expansion is a good idea. IMO it will make the regular season less meaningful.

But again, i agree. Having the last 4 AQ's and the last 4 at-large's play for 2 spots is not bad at all.
 
ibleedhuskyblue said:
I agree, except this logic can be used to expand the field even further: "why not more confidence, more swagger??". At a certain point, it will really water down the whole thing. I dont know what that point is, but i think we're at a decent place right now, and i dont think any further expansion is a good idea. IMO it will make the regular season less meaningful.

But again, i agree. Having the last 4 AQ's and the last 4 at-large's play for 2 spots is not bad at all.
Expand ...
yeah I have read there is consideration for a 96-team field and to that I scream "No!". Leave it at a 68 team field. The tournament could be expanded to a 136-team field and there will always be teams that felt they were snubbed. Teams feeling snubbed will always occur no matter how big or small the tournament field is.
 
aceboon said:
personally I think it should be just "at large/last teams in" playing, let the 16 seeds who won their conference tourney get their 1 seed matchup
Expand ...

If this first four has to exist that is my preference too. The tourney champs earned their way into the real thing.

There's probably argument to made that its good for exposure and an extra tourney credit for the smaller leagues.. but that still doesn't justify it in my opinion.
 
gsmooth said:
yeah I have read there is consideration for a 96-team field and to that I scream "No!". Leave it at a 68 team field. The tournament could be expanded to a 136-team field and there will always be teams that felt they were snubbed. Teams feeling snubbed will always occur no matter how big or small the tournament field is.
Expand ...
I don't know if I fully agree with this. At some point you're going to run into objectively bad teams that haven't had regular seasons worthy of a postseason. But I do think the arbitrary cutoff in numbers (68/96/whatever) will continue to make it likely that either undeserving teams make it or deserving teams are snubbed. Personally I'm fine with Rutgers not making the tourny.
 
aceboon said:
personally I think it should be just "at large/last teams in" playing, let the 16 seeds who won their conference tourney get their 1 seed matchup
Expand ...
The good thing about the way it’s set up now is that 2 of the 16 seeds earn a tournament credit for their conference, and that would go away if it was just at large teams.
 
gsmooth said:
yeah I have read there is consideration for a 96-team field and to that I scream "No!". Leave it at a 68 team field. The tournament could be expanded to a 136-team field and there will always be teams that felt they were snubbed. Teams feeling snubbed will always occur no matter how big or small the tournament field is.
Expand ...
Tournaments have two different philosophy’s
Exclusive or Inclusive . College BB has always been exclusive
I pretty much lived in KY for a couple of years .
They have a successful all inclusive tournament
They break the State down into 16 geographic regions . Each region had its own tournament with every HS is represented without regard to size . The winners of each region participate in a blind draw to see who plays who. A smaller school from a rural region or from the poorer eastern mountains can draw a large Louisville Catholic school . I believe Indiana has a similar set up . The NCAA tournament use to actually have a true regional concept at one time . . That ended up with a FF from the each section . But like its predecessor the NIT is was limited by invitations.
Can the NCAA adopt the Ky model ? I believe yes, an very
easily by eliminating conference tournaments and have all inclusive geographical regional tournaments instead. You could have 4, 8, 16, or even 32 regions. No seeding in the finals tournaments just a blind draw .
The World Cup the biggest tournament started out by inviting all soccer playing countries . By the sport’s expansion required regional qualifiers. and that generates $ 400 billion in revenue but technically no country is excluded . You have countries like Croatia with 4 million people in the finals
The NCAA men’s BB is the best annual tournament in the world .So one thought is you don’t fix what ain’t broken or maybe you can possibly even make it better. I remember when it was a smaller field and expansion has only made it better .
 
gsmooth said:
yeah I have read there is consideration for a 96-team field and to that I scream "No!". Leave it at a 68 team field. The tournament could be expanded to a 136-team field and there will always be teams that felt they were snubbed. Teams feeling snubbed will always occur no matter how big or small the tournament field is.
Expand ...
But if at 136 Cuse would have a chance to get in……
 
AZHuskiePop said:
Tournaments have two different philosophy’s
Exclusive or Inclusive . College BB has always been exclusive
I pretty much lived in KY for a couple of years .
They have a successful all inclusive tournament
They break the State down into 16 geographic regions . Each region had its own tournament with every HS is represented without regard to size . The winners of each region participate in a blind draw to see who plays who. A smaller school from a rural region or from the poorer eastern mountains can draw a large Louisville Catholic school . I believe Indiana has a similar set up . The NCAA tournament use to actually have a true regional concept at one time . . That ended up with a FF from the each section . But like its predecessor the NIT is was limited by invitations.
Can the NCAA adopt the Ky model ? I believe yes, an very
easily by eliminating conference tournaments and have all inclusive geographical regional tournaments instead. You could have 4, 8, 16, or even 32 regions. No seeding in the finals tournaments just a blind draw .
The World Cup the biggest tournament started out by inviting all soccer playing countries . By the sport’s expansion required regional qualifiers. and that generates $ 400 billion in revenue but technically no country is excluded . You have countries like Croatia with 4 million people in the finals
The NCAA men’s BB is the best annual tournament in the world .So one thought is you don’t fix what ain’t broken or maybe you can possibly even make it better. I remember when it was a smaller field and expansion has only made it better .
Expand ...
That's interesting information on high school state tournaments. Thanks for the reply.

What I bolded in your response has been my take for a while.
 
7774 said:
The good thing about the way it’s set up now is that 2 of the 16 seeds earn a tournament credit for their conference, and that would go away if it was just at large teams.
Expand ...
The other benefit is with 6 16 seeds it shifts some teams down a seedline, and leads to better teams in the 5/12, 4/13 games
 
16 seeds in the play-in get:

Primetime spotlight.
News reporting of win/loss.
Like 50x more likely to win a game in the tournament and play an extra game.
50/50 shot for extra tournament credit for conference.
Still get to play the 1 seed half the time.

The only real cons are the tighter travel and prep windows. And the play-in stigmatism that only exists because people don't understand that list of pros.
 
Palatine said:
Thought it was dumb and waste at first. But it gives these kids a chance to win a game in the NCAA and they play like it. They take it seriously, there are real consequences to the play in-game. It is so much better than the lamb to slaughter first round mismatch. They go into the regular field with a little confidence and swagger. And they get to go home feeling great after their NCAA experience. There is really no downside.
Expand ...
Agree
 
Palatine said:
Thought it was dumb and waste at first. But it gives these kids a chance to win a game in the NCAA and they play like it. They take it seriously, there are real consequences to the play in-game. It is so much better than the lamb to slaughter first round mismatch. They go into the regular field with a little confidence and swagger. And they get to go home feeling great after their NCAA experience. There is really no downside.
Expand ...
And now he sees the light;)
 
I just want to see some NIT winning fans jumping around and yelling "We're # 137!".
 
Palatine said:
Thought it was dumb and waste at first. But it gives these kids a chance to win a game in the NCAA and they play like it. They take it seriously, there are real consequences to the play in-game. It is so much better than the lamb to slaughter first round mismatch. They go into the regular field with a little confidence and swagger. And they get to go home feeling great after their NCAA experience. There is really no downside.
Expand ...

The problem is you are looking at the winner - how about the AQ loser in Dayton?

The NEC has been sent to Dayton for the last 10 seasons quite deservingly because it has been regularly one of the lowest ranked conferences.

But the NEC is just 4-6 in those games (FDU now has 2 of those wins). Two years ago Mt. St. Mary's lost to Texas Southern.

The First Four is mixed bag. The winning team gets an extra NCAA share (that's a great thing), but lose and it feels like you were almost there.

So I have mixed feelings and wouldn't complain to have CCSU win a game in Dayton, but after a very tough road for a low major to win the AQ, being regulated to the Opening Round can be can still be a huge disappointment.
 
Palatine said:
Thought it was dumb and waste at first. But it gives these kids a chance to win a game in the NCAA and they play like it. They take it seriously, there are real consequences to the play in-game. It is so much better than the lamb to slaughter first round mismatch. They go into the regular field with a little confidence and swagger. And they get to go home feeling great after their NCAA experience. There is really no downside.
Expand ...
Yes. They should have it like the BE tourney. Top 64………..
 

Online statistics

Members online
195
Guests online
3,572
Total visitors
3,767
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,262
Messages
4,389,652
Members
10,196
Latest member
Whizzlerr


.
..
Top Bottom