Jump to content

Play-In Game


Jimmy!

Recommended Posts

I don't know about a waste of time, but certainly unfair. These teams earned their way into the tournament and now are told that they have to win one more game just to get in. One of them never gets to be in what we all view as the tournament. FAMU is done and some of us are still contemplating our brackets. They deserve to be able to get their shot at Kansas, or whoever. I know, I know, "win the game and it's no problem." But someone has to lose that game. Someone has to feel like they did not quite make it to the dance.

And why? Because of the fear of taking one more mediocre team out of the tournament every year--disappointing one more school that finished .500 in a tough conference.

If they want to add a game, they should make the last two at large teams play, like Arkansas and ODU. They could play for a 12 seed. No automatics should be in that game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about a waste of time, but certainly unfair. These teams earned their way into the tournament and now are told that they have to win one more game just to get in. One of them never gets to be in what we all view as the tournament. FAMU is done and some of us are still contemplating our brackets. They deserve to be able to get their shot at Kansas, or whoever. I know, I know, "win the game and it's no problem." But someone has to lose that game. Someone has to feel like they did not quite make it to the dance.

And why? Because of the fear of taking one more mediocre team out of the tournament every year--disappointing one more school that finished .500 in a tough conference.

If they want to add a game, they should make the last two at large teams play, like Arkansas and ODU. They could play for a 12 seed. No automatics should be in that game.

Ok, "waste of time" is maybe a strong choice of words. I agree completely, though, that play-in games should go to the at-large teams. Conference champs should get an automatic bid period. Let the bubble teams vye for a #12 seed. That would certainly make it more fair. Plus, if you have the choice between Florida A&M/Niagara or Syracuse/Arkansas, which one would garner higher TV ratings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's talk of adding 6 more teams to the tourney next year, adding 3 more "play-in" games. I think that's a great idea, because it lessens the stigma of competing in the play-in game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they want to add a game, they should make the last two at large teams play, like Arkansas and ODU. They could play for a 12 seed. No automatics should be in that game.

Great minds think alike. I remember mentioning the same thing to my folks during last night's game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's talk of adding 6 more teams to the tourney next year, adding 3 more "play-in" games. I think that's a great idea, because it lessens the stigma of competing in the play-in game.
If they do it with the lowest-RPI'd conferences, it will ADD to the stigma.

The HBCU's are already mad that every 'Opening Round' game has had either the MEAC or SWAC champion. If they expand that round from the bottom, it'll guarantee that they'll both be in every year.

If you're an automatic qualifier, you should be guaranteed a spot in the 64, even if it's as a 16 seed to be fodder for the UNCs and Kansases of the world.

They should load all those low-RPI conference winners as 16s, 15s, etc., and, wherever they stop, open up the next four lines for eight teams to play each other to be 13 or 12 seeds. Put two games in Dayton (send winners into East and South regions) and two in, say, Salt Lake City (for Midwest and West).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I obviously watched it, And saw the Purple Eagles win their first NCAA game since 1970. If it was say Florida A+M against Cent. Conn. St. I would not have watched.

What the NCAA should do is to add 3 teams, have 4 "Opening Round Games" with the 8 lowest at-large teams play their way in. This year say Stanford, Illinois, Purdue, Arkansas, Xavier, Drexel, SU, Air Force fight it out for the last 4 spots in the main bracket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's talk of adding 6 more teams to the tourney next year, adding 3 more "play-in" games. I think that's a great idea, because it lessens the stigma of competing in the play-in game.

In all seriousness, I beleive that there was a proposal circulating that would expand the tourney to 80 teams with the top four seeds in each region each playing the winner of a play-in game.

If that is, in fact, the case, then I propose that all eight play-in games be hosted at one site, four games on Tuesday and four games on Wednesday. The site could rotate each year and the whole extravaganza could be called "Cinderella's Ball" (assuming, of course, that Disney doesn't own the rights to the name Cinderella).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well obviously, the reason why they play in to a #16 seed is because that follows bracketing logic when you're dealing with seeds. Since you're dealing with what basically is a 16 vs. 17 game, then logically they have to play a 1.

What sucks is that really, only three sets of people care about this game -- the two schools involved, and the #1 seed who plays the winner on Friday night. The game isn't even counted in most pools. Not only that, but Niagara's reward for winning last night is pretty much going to be a crushing loss at the hands of Kansas in two nights' time.

Y'know, an easier solution to all of this is to just get rid of an at-large bid. Does there have to be 34 at-large bids? Better yet, does there have to be all these damn conferences?

But I agree with everyone else. The lowest at-large berth is a #12 seed. Have them play into the game against a 5 seed in the bracket with the #1 overall team. The game will actually mean something, and it won't take away anything from the teams that acutally earned their right to be there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'know, an easier solution to all of this is to just get rid of an at-large bid. Does there have to be 34 at-large bids? Better yet, does there have to be all these damn conferences?

That's how I feel. 64 is the perfect number of teams. It does not matter whether there are 34, 33 or 28 at large bids, there are always going to be teams that just miss out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's talk of adding 6 more teams to the tourney next year, adding 3 more "play-in" games. I think that's a great idea, because it lessens the stigma of competing in the play-in game.

In all seriousness, I beleive that there was a proposal circulating that would expand the tourney to 80 teams with the top four seeds in each region each playing the winner of a play-in game.

If that is, in fact, the case, then I propose that all eight play-in games be hosted at one site, four games on Tuesday and four games on Wednesday. The site could rotate each year and the whole extravaganza could be called "Cinderella's Ball" (assuming, of course, that Disney doesn't own the rights to the name Cinderella).

The NCAA tournament is beloved. And the NCAA has to realize that the primary reason it is beloved is low-stakes gambling. If they set up a situation in which that many teams "play-in", some of those teams will win a game and maybe even make a sweet 16 or final 8. That would create some bracket havoc, giving pools the need to be all done by tuesday AM, basically one full day (Monday).

So I think they'd be careful before they'd have this kind of expansion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole thing about the "teams who get guaranteed sports should be literally guaranteed a spot in the tournament" is hitting the nail right on the head. I mean come on, you work that hard to win your conference tournament as a mid-major, and you figure that you're gonna finally get your shot against the big boys, guaranteed. But NO, a friggin "opening round" game that's basically a glorified play-in game for the right to basically lose to the #1 seed. That's wrong, and I'd rather see the last two at-large teams play than two teams who had a guaranteed spot but were put in that place because of the conference they play in and the level they play at.

So basically, my stance is this: If you get a guaranteed spot, you shouldn't have to play a play-in game. The at-larges should be the one playing the play-in game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Play-In game is a double edged sword in my eyes.

On one side, you have those who will complain about this game. Let's face it, it's a Play-In game. Now, if the seedings went by where the 65 teams were on the RPI, Florida A&M would of been a shoo-in to play in Dayton, but not Niagara. There isn't much to gain out of this game....

...Except this: How many other small schools would kill for a chance to say 'We have won a game in the NCAA Tournament?' This is about the only chance a school like Niagara, or Florida A&M, can win a NCAA Tourny game without becoming a sacraficial lamb to the top seeds.

But, it should be ousted soon. Just drop an at-large bid, that's all. Don't force schools who worked hard all year long to play one more game to be a sacraficial lamb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's talk of adding 6 more teams to the tourney next year, adding 3 more "play-in" games. I think that's a great idea, because it lessens the stigma of competing in the play-in game.

I agree, it will also add 3 at large bids that could go to the Derxels of the world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's talk of adding 6 more teams to the tourney next year, adding 3 more "play-in" games. I think that's a great idea, because it lessens the stigma of competing in the play-in game.

I agree, it will also add 3 at large bids that could go to the Derxels of the world

.... not mention the Syracuses..... and the Air Forces.... and .... oh what the heck... just put everyone in the tournament.... that way one will bitch and complain that they didn't get a shot at the national title :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's talk of adding 6 more teams to the tourney next year, adding 3 more "play-in" games. I think that's a great idea, because it lessens the stigma of competing in the play-in game.

I agree, it will also add 3 at large bids that could go to the Derxels of the world

.... not mention the Syracuses..... and the Air Forces.... and .... oh what the heck... just put everyone in the tournament.... that way one will bitch and complain that they didn't get a shot at the national title :D

Meh...the committee was doing us a public service by keeping those fugly unis of Syracuse' out of the tournament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the Opening Round game.

It pits the two worst teams (sometimes one or both having a .500 or worse record) in an official NCAA game so they can have a realistic shot at winning a Tournament game before they get their clocks cleaned by a team much, much better than them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.