- Joined
- Mar 6, 2024
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction Score
- 10
It's purely about NCAA balance of power -- politics, if you like that word, or consensus-building, or compromise.Can someone help me understand why an 11 seed would still have to compete in a "play-in" game? And there's even a "play-in" game for a 12 seed. I can understand- sort of- a play-in for the lowest seeds, the 16's. But why in the world would relatively well-seeded teams be forced into a play-in? Seems really random and unfair to those teams.
The NCAA is nothing more than a thin veneer over committees made up of college ADs and conference commissioners -- and at the highest level, presidents. As the number of conferences has grown and threatened to take away the number of at-large spots, some new compromise had to be worked out. So far in both women's and men's, the compromise has been half the First Four of AQs (16-seeds) and half of AL (usually 11s, occasionally 10s or 12s).
There isn't some cabal full of external folks called "NCAA" that bosses the schools around and just can't make up its mind who is more deserving. It's the schools themselves who have negotiated a balance of power that everyone is sorta-OK with...
...for now, which will all fall apart when the football factories secede and ruin everything else. But for now, I'll enjoy it even in its imperfection.