This has probably been asked and answered a million times but I'm too lazy to search. Why aren't all the play-in games 16 seeds?
Play-in games
- Thread starter 1100011CS
- Start date
4 lowest at large teams, 4 lowest auto qualifier teams
I don't think they wanted to penalize that many low major automatic qualifiers like that. If they had to go to 68, then I think it is fair to have some of these games include the bubble teams that just barely got in.
Doesn't this imply all a/q teams are seeded higher than at-large teams which obviously isn't true.
I don't think so, in general I think the at-large play in games the teams are usually in the 40's for overall seed. The AQ play in games I think are almost always, or maybe just always, the last 4 overall seeded teams because some conferences are small and not good.
If you just don't pay attention to the First Four games then you can pretend there's only 64 teams, easy peasy.
auto qualifiers shouldn't have to play in the first 4...
It should be the last 8 at-large teams into the tournament
It should be the last 8 at-large teams into the tournament
Hard disagree.
First of all the original play-in game was created because an additional low conference auto bid was created so the playin game was created to prevent a bid from being stolen from the at large field by a bad conference and weakening the tournament.
Secondly, the fact is, the 15 and 16 seeds usually don't get there by accident. They are usually bad teams with lots of very bad losses (like sub-300). They got an invite at all because they beat a few teams in march (who also werent very good). Say what you will about the at large field, but even the last at large teams allowed in (and generally even the first ones out!) are much better and have done much more to earn their spots. In general all of them would have been expected to cruise through the same tournaments that gave those 16 seeds their auto bids.
The bottom teams in the seeding otherwise only have an almost certain clubbing to look forward to as their first game. This way the bottom 4 teams get to play a winnable game on national TV, they get millions of eyeballs in a game they're not going to lose by 40, and if they win they get more money.
There's something about March Madness that any team can get in. I love the low seeds having a chance. And just look every once in a while a 15 seed upsets a 2, or we even had UMBC upset a 1, the top overall 1 seed. I think all the low seeds should get a chance at the #1 and #2 seeds.
I say expand the play-in games "Bracket even further with the more bubble teams. Would you rather see the current 11 seeds go for it + add in say UNC, Oklahoma St, Rutgers, Oregon and let those 8 teams battle it out for the last 4 spots? No one really cares about the play in games right now, maybe some will for the 11 seeds because it's usually some high major teams,
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
Right. Call it "one last chance" for those teams and move the AQ into the tourney bid they earned.
I have a theory: a minor indirect side-effect of pushing 2 AQ 16s into play-in has increased the frequency of 15-over-2 upsets .... a few teams that would've been 14 seeds in the 64 format drop to 15 line, so in some cases those are 2 vs. 14.
That isn't an argument for or against whether play-in should be all 16s or all last in/first out at-large.
That isn't an argument for or against whether play-in should be all 16s or all last in/first out at-large.
I agreed wholeheartedly with this but I saw a video the other day explaining why it's actually a very good thing for the 16 seeds (the schools, not necessarily the players). I didn't really fact check it but assuming it's all true as I don't see why someone would make it up.
The schools/conference get a nice little cut for every NCAA tournament game they play in, and that gets paid out over the next six (I think) years. The team that wins essentially gets credit for two games (assuming they lose to the 1 seed) in.stead of one, doubling their pay.
We can all agree that playing in the first four is NOT making the tournament..
So why should a league champ with an AQ bid have to not make the tournament??
WAY more eyeballs would watch P6 programs play their way into the tourney than watch some no name MEAC school play the Horizon league champ
So why should a league champ with an AQ bid have to not make the tournament??
WAY more eyeballs would watch P6 programs play their way into the tourney than watch some no name MEAC school play the Horizon league champ
Negative, an AQ's should not play in the play in game. Whats the point of conference tourneys if winners have to play a game to get into the tournament?
I know this is a meme or something, but the first four counts as being in the tournament, you still get paid for being in the tournament, and millions of people watch the games.
Actually I think it was when the WAC split and the MWC was formed - the lower conferences were "punished" for a new upper-mid major being formed. Since then the MWC has fairly remained status quo in terms of power while the WAC has become a lower conference as well as too many other things to keep track of, but originally the two lowest 16s were forced to play a play-in game because of that.
Now here's the thing - I don't think the 16 seeds actually mind playing that game. This all started long before a 16-seed finally upset a 1-seed, and even now it's still a rather hopeless proposition going up against a 1 (compared to the 2-15, where it happens every few years now). So with 16-seeds playing that game it guarantees some of them getting wins.
I also like the idea of making the teams that pick up the last few at-large spots play each other because why shouldn't the teams that are the last to get in play an extra game?
I don't mind going back to 64 teams; I don't mind going up to 96 teams... 68 is just a weird number.
The Selection Committee might disagree with you... but I don't. There's a reason why, to the chagrin of the Committee, we call them "play-in" games. It also doesn't help two teams with the same seed are fighting for a spot in the first round of the field of 64.