Play in games.

franstheman

Well-Known Member
So how does this work? Did they just expand the number of play in games this year? I've seen some projections of Iowa playing in a play in game as a 12 seed and whatnot but i thought the play in games were just for like 15 and 16 seeds from one bid leagues and i thought there were just like 2 or 3 maybe 4 of them???
 


So how does this work? Did they just expand the number of play in games this year? I've seen some projections of Iowa playing in a play in game as a 12 seed and whatnot but i thought the play in games were just for like 15 and 16 seeds from one bid leagues and i thought there were just like 2 or 3 maybe 4 of them???

This changed last year. 1st 4 teams are at larges that play as 12's or 13's then play in the actual round 1
 


There are now 68 teams that make the tournament so they now have 4 first round games, 2 of them are low major games that are 16 seeds and the other 2 are the last 4 to make the tournament as an at large.
 




When they went to 65 and then to 68, its just a way to get more at-large bids.

I hate the play in games and wish they would go back to 64.

A 16 seed that has to go play in Dayton, Ohio on a Tuesday night against another 16 seed and loses doesnt get to experience the NCAA tournament. Let them go take a crack at Duke/Kansas/Kentucky.
 


When they went to 65 and then to 68, its just a way to get more at-large bids.

I hate the play in games and wish they would go back to 64.

A 16 seed that has to go play in Dayton, Ohio on a Tuesday night against another 16 seed and loses doesnt get to experience the NCAA tournament. Let them go take a crack at Duke/Kansas/Kentucky.

There is a 20-loss team that won its conference tournament who will be playing that role this year.
 




Whats your point? They qualified for the NCAA tournament just like every other team in the country, except Ivy League teams, has the chance to do.

My point is the same as yours. That should they win their play-in game (which is a long shot), they'll be a 16 seed. By getting put in the play-in game, that team is being denied the experience of being in the actual tournament.
 


My point is the same as yours. That should they win their play-in game (which is a long shot), they'll be a 16 seed. By getting put in the play-in game, that team is being denied the experience of being in the actual tournament.

It is considered "actual tournament" now, those games are now considered first round games.

I like the 16 seeds playing each other and I wish they did it with the 15 seeds. It would get more of these bubble teams into the tournament and make these match ups more competitive (even the 1/16 game). It gives these low majors a chance at winning a game in the tournament instead of being 1 and done along with a little momentum going up against the 1 seed.
 


It is considered "actual tournament" now, those games are now considered first round games.

I like the 16 seeds playing each other and I wish they did it with the 15 seeds. It would get more of these bubble teams into the tournament and make these match ups more competitive (even the 1/16 game). It gives these low majors a chance at winning a game in the tournament instead of being 1 and done along with a little momentum going up against the 1 seed.


I dont care what they call it. It still sucks because it takes away teams oppurtunity to play in the actual tournament against the Goliath's of college basketball.


The bubble is so watered down and soft now, can you imagine the discussions that would be happening if 4 more at large bids were out there?
 


I dont care what they call it. It still sucks because it takes away teams oppurtunity to play in the actual tournament against the Goliath's of college basketball.


The bubble is so watered down and soft now, can you imagine the discussions that would be happening if 4 more at large bids were out there?

You still have those games, just better since you eliminate a few of the bad qualifiers that get blown out in the 1/16 game.

I hear you about the bubble but look at the success these "last four in" have had in the tournament. Two years ago I remember a VCU team that people like Vitale were screaming about being in the tournament go all the way to the final four.
 


It is considered "actual tournament" now, those games are now considered first round games.

I like the 16 seeds playing each other and I wish they did it with the 15 seeds. It would get more of these bubble teams into the tournament and make these match ups more competitive (even the 1/16 game). It gives these low majors a chance at winning a game in the tournament instead of being 1 and done along with a little momentum going up against the 1 seed.

The only reason it's considered an actual tournament game is because the NCAA decided to add 3 more teams to what was already a bad idea and give it a catchy name. They're play-in games, played for the sole purpose of advancing into the actual tournament. These aren't games that you'll pick in your office pool.
 


They may technically be the actual tournament, just like what is really the first and second round are now the "second and third" rounds.. I guess they call the play in games the first round now to try and make it sound like it's more than what it really is.. but whatever, the play-in games are something that basically nobody pays attention to, save for fans of the teams in those games. Even tournament pools that I've been in don't make you pick those games. Most people don't really consider it a part of the "real" tournament.

I tend to agree that a play in game is cheating Liberty out of what I personally think they fully earned by winning their conference tournament, which is a shot at playing one of the big boys, like Duke, Indiana or whoever. That's a 16 seed's dream to play in one of those games, not losing in some play-in game to another low seed. Whether they expect to actually BEAT the #1 seed or not.
 




Top