I hate tourney 'byes' and 'play-in games'

[TinyManInside]

I honestly think that the play-in game for the 11 or 12 seeds gives the winner of that game an unfair advantage of getting some momentum going to the 'real tournament'. We're starting to see winners of the play-in games making the SW16 or Elite 8 on a regular basis now. These are teams that wouldn't have even made it to the tournament without the added 4 bids. I'd like to see the tourney go back to 64 games, or failing that just expand it to 128 so everybody plays the same amount of games.

 

[Millhouse]

I honestly think that the play-in game for the 11 or 12 seeds gives the winner of that game an unfair advantage of getting some momentum going to the 'real tournament'. We're starting to see winners of the play-in games making the SW16 or Elite 8 on a regular basis now. These are teams that wouldn't have even made it to the tournament without the added 4 bids. I'd like to see the tourney go back to 64 games, or failing that just expand it to 128 so everybody plays the same amount of games.

I think it exists so that everyone else can say they made the second round at least

 

[TinyManInside]

I think it exists so that everyone else can say they made the second round at least

yeah, obviously. That and it because it fills the coffers a bit more. I just think it gives an unfair advantage to a team that otherwise might not even be in the tourney.

 

[Cootface]

yeah, obviously. That and it because it fills the coffers a bit more. I just think it gives an unfair advantage to a team that otherwise might not even be in the tourney.

Remember, VCU made the final four coming out of these play in games the first year they had them. I agree, it absolutely is an advantage.

 

[Millhouse]

Remember, VCU made the final four coming out of these play in games the first year they had them. I agree, it absolutely is an advantage.

it's an advantage to the team that wins

we probably would've lost the play in game

 

[joct]

I'm torn on this one. I get the momentum thing and how it factors in. But is Tennessee beating UMass and Mercer really due to momentum, or the fact that they weren't that much different from UMass even though they were a much lower seed. At the same time, they have to travel, and play 2 days later, sometimes in the afternoon.

It is funny how during the regular season short turnarounds while the other team rests are a disadvantage, but in the tournaments they are an advantage. Remember all the complaints when we had to play Maryland 48 hours after playing at Duke, while Maryland hadn't played in 6 days? JB especially complained about that, while he doesn't like the buy in tournaments. Following this logic, couldn't Maryland have complained that we had momentum while they were stale by having to wait around for a week?

 

[Doc5120]

I honestly think that the play-in game for the 11 or 12 seeds gives the winner of that game an unfair advantage of getting some momentum going to the 'real tournament'. We're starting to see winners of the play-in games making the SW16 or Elite 8 on a regular basis now. These are teams that wouldn't have even made it to the tournament without the added 4 bids. I'd like to see the tourney go back to 64 games, or failing that just expand it to 128 so everybody plays the same amount of games.

I totally agree with this. It penalizes a 5 seed. So basically finishing as one of the 17-20 best teams in the country can be a detriment come tourney time because you have to prepare for not 1, but 2 separate teams. And you basically have 1 full day to know who you're playing. I really hope SU is never put in a position to have to face the winner of a play in game. Take 4 less teams and make it 64. Or at worst, take 2 less teams and have 2 play in games for the 16 seeds. But this current format is ridiculous, in my opinion.

 

[sufandu]

If it gives an advantage, it's minor. Even if they win the round of 64 game, they don't have an advantage over whoever they play in the round of 32 (I have no idea whether to call these rounds 1st, second, or third anymore). How many times have we complained about saturday-monday turnarounds. A team playing in the play in game has to do that twice if they make it to saturday or sunday on the first weekend.

 

[Garbs]

Xavier and Iowa really had a great advantage this year

 

[Doc5120]

Xavier and Iowa really had a great advantage this year

The OP said "the winner" of the game. If not for the play-in games, Xavier and Iowa don't even get a chance. So at least they got to play in the tourney, sorta. :noidea:

 

[Garbs]

The OP said "the winner" of the game. If not for the play-in games, Xavier and Iowa don't even get a chance. So at least they got to play in the tourney, sorta. :noidea:

still a dumb thing, like saying "Mercer was really under seeded"

 

[Doc5120]

still a dumb thing, like saying "Mercer was really under seeded"

I understand both sides of the coin. But wouldn't you agree it does a bit of a disservice to the 5 or 6 seed that has to prepare for 2 potential opponents and then only has basically a full day to see who they are actually playing? Personally, I wouldn't want to see SU in that situation of not knowing who they'll get in the round of 64.

 

[Garbs]

Same amount of time you have to prepare for round of 32 opponent

 

[HOFCeluck]

I totally agree with this. It penalizes a 5 seed. So basically finishing as one of the 17-20 best teams in the country can be a detriment come tourney time because you have to prepare for not 1, but 2 separate teams. And you basically have 1 full day to know who you're playing. I really hope SU is never put in a position to have to face the winner of a play in game. Take 4 less teams and make it 64. Or at worst, take 2 less teams and have 2 play in games for the 16 seeds. But this current format is ridiculous, in my opinion.

No way. The 16 seeds earned their right to Bevin the field of 64

 

[Doc5120]

No way. The 16 seeds earned their right to Bevin the field of 64

Definitely true. Then go back to 64. The notion of play-in games (or whatever the tourney committee calls them) is ridiculous. I know more games means more money, and ultimately that's all that matters to the NCAA. But this 1st four thing is foolish.

Unrelated- You also get a like for a great board name.

 

[Doc5120]

Same amount of time you have to prepare for round of 32 opponent

You're absolutely correct. But to make a 5 or 6 seed wait an extra 2 or 3 days to find out who they're playing allots them less time to game plan for their future opponent. As of selection Sunday, those two 12 seeds in the play-in game know ahead of time who they'll see should they win. I just don't see how a top 20 team has to await it's fate.

 

[JohnCuse44]

They added the extra play in games so that all the conferences would get a team in (conference winner). I say just make it 4 16 seed teams have to win a game for the right to get hammered by a 1 seed.

If they cut it back to 64 but still gave each conference 1 bid it would cut four at large spots out. You would have a weaker field in total.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Definitely true. Then go back to 64. The notion of play-in games (or whatever the tourney committee calls them) is ridiculous. I know more games means more money, and ultimately that's all that matters to the NCAA. But this 1st four thing is foolish.

Unrelated- You also get a like for a great board name.

I may be wrong about this, but the reason they expanded to 65 in 2001 was because of the increase in conferences resulted in one more auto bid. So some team on the bubble that would've made it would get left out.

I don't agree with that logic, because I couldn't care less about that 65th team.

 

[Doc5120]

I may be wrong about this, but the reason they expanded to 65 in 2001 was because of the increase in conferences resulted in one more auto bid. So some team on the bubble that would've made it would get left out.

I don't agree with that logic, because I couldn't care less about that 65th team.

You're exactly right. That's why they did it. And they had two 16 seeds play in the play in game. I couldn't understand why they didn't just take 1 less at large team, as if taking 36 instead of 37 at larges would have been such a catastrophic difference.

 

[SoBeCuse]

It's especially messed up when a team like Tennessee is good and mis-seeded. They should've been comfortably in, imo.