Should the NCAA First Four count as NCAA Tourney's First Round?

[dbackdiehard17]

Hey guys, just did a video asking the question if the NCAA Tournament should count the First Four as the First Round, and if winning a game in the First Four should count like any other tourney win (For example: Northwestern St. was the first 16 seed to win a tourney game in 2001... do you really think it should count like that?)

look forward to the debate! Watch the vid, let me know what you think! Thanks guys!

[OnWis97]

I hate to say it but, yes. What really should happen is that it should go back to 64 (but that's a different argument).

You either have to designate them "Play-in" or "real" games. I prefer the latter. Iona and Mississipi Valley state got in and deserve to be designated as such. Yeah that gives "tournament wins" to a couple of 16 seeds every year, but so what...good for them to get that in their histories.

I still have trouble calling THU/FRI the "second round" (and like the line that someone on on ESPN said when they caught themselves missing that: "oh yeah, 60 teams get byes"), but ultimately it's no big deal.

This is your tourney field. All games are part of it.

[bucknut40]

This is a big topic for me, I live in Dayton and have attended the games since they began. I hate it when people say that they aren't part of the tournament because last time a checked if you win your conference tournament you are an automatic bid

[Magnus]

64 teams, 32 conferences. Get it done.

[TheOldRoman]

No. It's silly to say 60 teams earned a first-round bye.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Yes. There weren't 64 teams until 1985. I have no idea why people struggle with 65 or 68 but no one calls for it to go back to the "good old days" of 32. Is it 128 or bust to count as a legit first round? No. The tournament is the tournament.

And the signifcance is not about a 16 seed winning, it's a 16 seed beating a 1. If anyone calls what Northwestern State did "history" in any terms other than what it was - a 16 beating another 16 - they're just skewing stats to fill their needs, which happens a lot these days.

[zpqmaowl]

Dude, this isn't your personal advertising board for your videos/articles.

[DaytonBlue]

And the significance is not about a 16 seed winning, it's a 16 seed beating a 1. If anyone calls what Northwestern State did "history" in any terms other than what it was - a 16 beating another 16 - they're just skewing stats to fill their needs, which happens a lot these days.

This is the significant stat with the 16 seed...they've never beat a one.

But yes, these definitely should count as tourney wins. The NCAA feels the same way...that's why on Thursday the 2nd round begins.

I'd rather have this than 128 though. That would be ridiculous.

[McCall]

It can still count as tourney wins without being called the first round. Only 8 of 68 team's are playing in it. Just call it the "First Four" or something, but not the "first round".

[speedy]

Dude, this isn't your personal advertising board for your videos/articles.

Dude, it's turned into a pretty sufficient discussion. At least add to it if you're going to barge in being Capt. Douche.

Back on track here, I think it's a shame automatic bids get placed in these play-in games. They automatically made THE tournament, not a game to make it to the round of 64. I'll never consider these play-in games as the first round because it's not. They're playing for the 16th seed, they don't already have it.

[pmoehrin]

I know the NCAA and CBS are pushing the play in games as being the first round games hard.

They just had Doug McDermont of Creighton talk about how great it would be to go the second round and after the interview was over the interviewer said good luck in the third round.

My own opinion I think its really dumb to try and call four play in games a round when you have 32 games in the second. We never called it the second round when there was just one play in game. So if we had two play in games would that qualify for being a round? What about three? Four does it though.

Or just get rid of play in games altogether or just have one or two.

[cmm]

Instead of calling them the Second and Third Rounds, just call them the Round of 64 and the Round of 32 like in tennis.

[pmoehrin]

Instead of calling them the Second and Third Rounds, just call them the Round of 64 and the Round of 32 like in tennis.

I think the idea is they want to give these four play in games legitimacy because they want to expand the tournament to 96 teams and put the idea in people's heads that the 64 team field will be the second round.

If they have announcers making it a point to say this is the second round its a big deal to get this idea out there.

I think its a forgone conclusion the tournament will eventually expand to 96 teams its just a matter of when. I can't see anybody in basketball or the small conferences being in favor of it, but the large conferences love the idea, the NCAA loves the idea and most of the college presidents love the idea. So it will happen eventually. You can only hold out against those three groups for so long.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Back on track here, I think it's a shame automatic bids get placed in these play-in games. They automatically made THE tournament, not a game to make it to the round of 64. I'll never consider these play-in games as the first round because it's not. They're playing for the 16th seed, they don't already have it.

First off, that's not true. One game was for a 12 and one was for a 14. The other two are for 16s.

I find it interesting that there is even a debate. Again, some of you say four games isn't enough to be a round, but does it really need to be 128 teams before it counts? 96? You can't really draw a line anywhere in between if you don't count it now. It might not be ideal, but it is the tourney. Personally, I prefer the First Four concept to the play-in game, but I agree that automatic bids/conference champs should always get a "bye" to the, ahem, second round.

[TBGKon]

Quick question, but how come the First Four is played in Dayton? I'm thinking down the road you may see the First Four become a rotating site like the rest of the tourney.

[pmoehrin]

Quick question, but how come the First Four is played in Dayton? I'm thinking down the road you may see the First Four become a rotating site like the rest of the tourney.

I would say probably because its pretty close to the geographic center of Division 1 basketball programs.

You might get a rotation but I doubt it until/if the tournament expands.

[dbackdiehard17]

Quick question, but how come the First Four is played in Dayton? I'm thinking down the road you may see the First Four become a rotating site like the rest of the tourney.

I would say probably because its pretty close to the geographic center of Division 1 basketball programs.

You might get a rotation but I doubt it until/if the tournament expands.

http://www.middletownjournal.com/middletown-sports/commentary-first-four-should-be-here-to-stay-1345276.html

According to that article the First Four is set for Dayton next year and after that it's up for bids. Interesting...

"In fact, the event should be Dayton?s forever and, frankly, throwing it open for bids ? as the NCAA plans to do after UD hosts it again next year ? seems like an insult."

[Funky Bunky]

No...... It's a "play-in" game, to get "in" the tournament. The "play-in" games are not "in" the tournament, so how can they be the first round of something they are not a part of?

[CubsFanBudMan]

It's not like all of the other tournament games are played in Madison Square Garden or some other single location. So how does the fact that they are played in Dayton make them not "in" the tournament? They are not called "play-in games." Again, interesting discussion, but there really is no debate. I'm just not seeing any valid arguments for the other side.

Is this going to happen this year in baseball, too? Everyone knows that the one-game wild-card playoff is part of the postseason, right? Even though all of the other series last for more than one game. Even though the game will have more in common with the Game 163s of the past. Even though that means everybody else gets a bye. MLB might need to be careful how they market it or it will become the "play-in" game, too.

[DaRadniz29]

For those arguing "play-in games" should be kept. What about those conference champions that get the play-in game? Like Vermont, Lamar?

When you start adding 12 seeds and 14 seeds in the first four...

The automatic bid should a bid INTO the tournament.

I would say you could still call the play-in games tournament games with calling it the first round, but it may be tough changing lots of people and players perception that before the first four, teams in play-in games felt like they were playing to go to the tournament and not already in. So that's probably why thy changed it to first round and added two more games.

I'm okay with calling the first four tournament games and wins, etc. I'd not necessarily call it the 2nd round, even if it is, because "60 teams get a bye" is a bit crazy, but it's also madness (pun intended), and that's what the tournament and/or fans want, right?