Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Should any conference tournament champs be slotted to play-in games?

Auto-bid Qualifers:

  • Total voters
    96
  • Poll closed .
ClonesFTW

ClonesFTW

Well-Known Member
Nov 13, 2013
4,848
7,793
113
Waukee
Seeing some spirited debate on this topic on whether 16 seed conference tournament champions should have to go to the play-in games.

My personal opinion is that if a team wins an automatic bid through the conference tournament (or reg season per conference decision) they should NOT have to go to Dayton. I believe the "last 4 in" type bubble teams should be the teams playing there. Thoughts?
 
If we wanted to find the best team in college basketball, every round should be a series of 3, 5, or 7 games. That is not what March Madness is. Let the 16 seeds in the real thing
 
  • Like
Reactions: CycloneEggie
The teams in the at large pool had infinitely more opportunity to earn their way into the 64 team field. Realistically, there are only 12 leagues that have the ability to earn an at large so the 20 that have no shot should have a spot in the bracket without having to play in. Still leaves 48 slots for everybody else.

Though a few of those leagues (SWAC, MEAC, NEC, Southland) actually like the play in because they get an extra unit and bigger checks if they win it.
 
It makes more sense if you recognize that the First Four count as being in the tournament, and the opportunity to win a tournament game on national TV is a big deal for the small schools that play in them.

The 16 seed game last night was a good watch.

If you don't like the first four just don't watch?
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: isu81, TomTreebow, SolterraCyclone and 1 other person
On one hand one of those 16 seeds is going to get two games on national tv. On the other hand one of those teams will never get the experience of actually going to the location, soaking that in, practicing and playing in a large arena.

I could really go either way on it.
 
PSYclone22 said:
Yeah, they're ******* awesome to watch
Click to expand...
I guess to each their own. I have no interest in those games. Past the Missouri Valley Conference (because of UNI and Drake), I don't really care about mid-majors. I love that they are in the tourney, but I cant tell you anything about them.
 
I'm kind of torn on this, I don't think it's fair to some of these small schools to have to play another small school in Dayton.

However, when you have a team like Texas Southern this year do they even deserve to play a #1 seed since they went 14-20?
 
3TrueFans said:
It makes more sense if you recognize that the First Four count as being in the tournament, and the opportunity to win a tournament game on national TV is a big deal for the small schools that play in them.

The 16 seed game last night was a good watch.

If you don't like the first four just don't watch?
Click to expand...
People need to know you won't watch
 
Gunnerclone said:
On one hand one of those 16 seeds is going to get two games on national tv. On the other hand one of those teams will never get the experience of actually going to the location, soaking that in, practicing and playing in a large arena.

I could really go either way on it.
Click to expand...

The bolded kind of brings up a good point when talking about 16 seeds who have to play in Dayton. Not only is it an extra game, but, unlike everyone else, they don't get a full week to prepare for their opponent. They have to prepare for their play in game, then have to go and play the 1 seed a couple days later, while the 1 seed gets all week to prepare for their opponent all week.
 
1UNI2ISU said:
Though a few of those leagues (SWAC, MEAC, NEC, Southland) actually like the play in because they get an extra unit and bigger checks if they win it.
Click to expand...

That brings a question -- if a league gets a unit for every win (up to the Final Four) -- doesn't that give unfair advantage to the worst 16 seeds (and those leagues) to have the extra game, compared to the better 16s? (Unless there's some other detail about first four units).
 
I said they should be allowed to be in the play in games since they apparently get additional money to do so and I think the play-in games are part of the tournament.

Otherwise no, only at large teams should be in the play in games.
 
If the games weren't actually a part of the tournament I'd agree that the AQs shouldn't have to play in them, that wouldn't be fair to them.
 
cyclones500 said:
That brings a question -- if a league gets a unit for every win (up to the Final Four) -- doesn't that give unfair advantage to the worst 16 seeds (and those leagues) to have the extra game, compared to the better 16s? (Unless there's some other detail about first four units).
Click to expand...
I would agree. It's awkward no matter how you go about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyclones500
3TrueFans said:
It makes more sense if you recognize that the First Four count as being in the tournament
Click to expand...
Put it in the books however you want but most people do not consider it being in the tournament. If they were in the tournament, they wouldn't call it a play-in game.

The little guys should get their chances to get their butts kicked by the big boys...or a very memorable upset.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom