Well this is a first (play-in) for the Women's tournament. The Men have been doing it for a few years now. Part of the gender equality stuff.
Still seems screwy that a 16th seed is in the tournament proper while an 11th seed isn’t without a qualifying game.
Just as in the men's tournament, which has been doing this since 2011, two of the "First Four" games involve the bottom 4 teams of the entire field (teams 65-68, seeded 16) while the other two games feature the last four at-large teams, which are typically 11 or 12 seeds.
I'm not sure if it's explicitly stated or not, but all 4 of the 11 seeds in the play-in game lost their conference tournament, so I believe they're considered the last teams to qualify for the tournament. The lower seeds (12-16) all won conference tournaments so they automatically qualified even though their overall resume doesn't stack up favorably to the 11 seeds who relied on at-large bids.
Shouldn't. The 16th seeds, for the most part won their league championship. Auto qualify. 11 seeds didn't win and probably finished lower in their respective league. They just happen to be one of the top 40ish teams in the country.
Thanks for the explanation. I guess I just wasn't paying attention. Should make for an interesting game. ( while we wait for UConn).
So the 1 seeds should have to play 11 seeds instead of 16s? And the 6 seeds get to play the 16 seeds instead of the 11s? Not understanding this rationale of giving the 6 seeds an easier opponent than the 1 seeds.
I've always thought the automatic qualifiers should not be in play-in games. They've already earned their place in the field of 64. I don't like the expansion, but if they're gonna do it, I'd rather the last 8 selected be in the play-in games.
The purpose of the NCAAT is to give every team an equal opportunity to win the NC and not to have an equally difficult road to the FF which is impossible.
What is a smarter league?
The IVY LEAGUE
Agreed that makes no sense. If we're going to force the final at large teams to 16s instead of where their strength legitimately places them, let's just make the whole thing random.
What I said is quite the opposite.
Is it though?
Based on "reputation", yes
Those are the schools not the league. The only measure we have of the “league’s” intelligence is it success. Since it is one of the least successful leagues it must therefore be the least intelligent league.
But the teams that get the lowest seeds are actually the worst teams in the field. It has nothing to do with disrespecting their league. Just look at their resumes. There are also good teams from weaker leagues who get seeded higher. Look at Murray State on the men's side this year — champs of the Ohio Valley, a one-bid league, and they're a 7 seed. Look at the other one-bid league champs who earned 10, 11 and 12 seeds. The teams are seeded as they are for a reason. If the 16 seeds don't like playing a 1 seed in the first round, they should have had a better team and better season like Murray State did.
Agree! AQ’s should never be in a play in game, but there is one tonight in the mens tournament.
For quite a while, the bottom four teams have been in play-ins for two spots, and the bottom four at-large teams have also had play-ins for two spots. It is now the same way for the women.
