for those obsessed with the notion that were not in the NCAA

[tm3308]

So those 1 seeds vs 16 seed is a more legitimate game then Ten vs Iowa? just because its in this all godly protected "first round" you speak off. C'mon now.

You are really arguing that the sky is blue. The NCAA would rather have 128 teams (that way you could have your cosmically important all inclusive "1st round) but they haven't been able to make it happen yet... but it will.

So when you have a number that doesn't fit perfectly you have to fit all the teams in.

Always thought you were smarter than to take up an silly argument.

Since when does the quality of the game matter in this discussion? You could take Florida and Arizona and put them in the "first round," for all I care. Winner gets a 1-seed, the other goes home. It's still a play-in game, not part of the first round, by any standard except for the NCAA's ridiculous definition (which is motivated solely by driving ratings, nothing more).

A minimum of 2/3 of the field should be playing, if we're going to call something a round. The top 1/3 gets a first round bye while the other 2/3 compete to advance to the second round. But calling something involving only 8 of 68 teams in the field, when the other 60 haven't even played yet, is not a round. It's four play-in games.

If Iowa wins, I'll feel like they've made it back to the tournament. They lose, and we'd only be hanging our hats on a technicality by saying we made it, IMO.

 

[Bigtenchamp]

Since when does the quality of the game matter in this discussion? You could take Florida and Arizona and put them in the "first round," for all I care. Winner gets a 1-seed, the other goes home. It's still a play-in game, not part of the first round, by any standard except for the NCAA's ridiculous definition (which is motivated solely by driving ratings, nothing more).

A minimum of 2/3 of the field should be playing, if we're going to call something a round. The top 1/3 gets a first round bye while the other 2/3 compete to advance to the second round. But calling something involving only 8 of 68 teams in the field, when the other 60 haven't even played yet, is not a round. It's four play-in games.

If Iowa wins, I'll feel like they've made it back to the tournament. They lose, and we'd only be hanging our hats on a technicality by saying we made it, IMO.

Wow man I really can't believe you are arguing this... really. So until they add another - what you quantify as a round (boggle) then those games are not really not really part of the tournament? There are 68 teams so they have to bracket them somehow.

So until they expand the tournament to another entire "round" they aren't in the ncaa tourney?

lol... that's some backwards arsed logic of all time.

 

[Skeets77]

The NCAA should really just call it the "Wild Card Round", and everyone would embrace it. See NFL/MLB.

Whatever you want to call it. It will be embraced once they get the "Wild Card-Play-in" into the bracket like the NFL so people accept it as part of the tournament.

 

[83Hawk]

So does the team that lost to them not need an asterisk because VCU went to the Final Four? I am super confused by all the stipulations that determine weather or not Iowa in an NCAA team win or lose. Actually, in the first round games each team should be confident they can win as the teams are supposed to be similar on playing levels, just like NCSt. and Xavier last night. Help me further understand what doesn't classify Iowa as an NCAA tournament team since they have the same chance as the other 67 teams to win the whole thing, win X amount of games and you are champs????? Granted talent and all that other stuff can help your chances, but in the end all 68 teams can win, so how is that not being in the tournament again????

Count me as confused too. I'm having trouble keeping up with tm3308's stipulations as to what is and isn't considered being in the tournament (no matter what the ncaa says!).

Iowa is in the tournament. That is an indisputable fact. I would like someone to explain to me how they have to "play in" to a tournament they are already in.

If some people have to stamp their feet and throw a hissy fit by insisting on calling the first round games "play in" games (even though they are wrong)...then fine. Let the babies have their bottle.

It is all going to be a moot point when the Hawks win tonight anyway, though I'm sure the naysayers will find something else to complain about.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

Count me as confused too. I'm having trouble keeping up with tm3308's stipulations as to what is and isn't considered being in the tournament (no matter what the ncaa says!).

Iowa is in the tournament. That is an indisputable fact. I would like someone to explain to me how they have to "play in" to a tournament they are already in.

If some people have to stamp their feet and throw a hissy fit by insisting on calling the first round games "play in" games (even though they are wrong)...then fine. Let the babies have their bottle.

It is all going to be a moot point when the Hawks win tonight anyway, though I'm sure the naysayers will find something else to complain about.

If these games are not play in games, then there never were any play in games, including the "Field of 65" days when you had a single 16/16 game, because that game was every bit as much a part of the tournament as the couple extra games are now. No one had a problem calling that one game a play in game back then. Dubbing it "the first four" doesn't change the meaning.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

So does the team that lost to them not need an asterisk because VCU went to the Final Four? I am super confused by all the stipulations that determine weather or not Iowa in an NCAA team win or lose. Actually, in the first round games each team should be confident they can win as the teams are supposed to be similar on playing levels, just like NCSt. and Xavier last night. Help me further understand what doesn't classify Iowa as an NCAA tournament team since they have the same chance as the other 67 teams to win the whole thing, win X amount of games and you are champs????? Granted talent and all that other stuff can help your chances, but in the end all 68 teams can win, so how is that not being in the tournament again????

No, they do not.

 

[MiniMoeHawk]

Tell VCU they should have an asterisk by their Final Four appearance. Better yet, they should be forced to vacate it.

VCU earned the final 4 by winning 4 games after the opening round game. They were put into the same position as the other teams. You can't count a 16 seed beating up on another 16 seed as a tournament win. There is only a handfull of 15 seeds that have won and ZERO 16 seeds have won in the history of the tournament. It isn't fair to the other 16 seeds who have gotten steam rolled against the 1 seed and compare that to a 16 vs 16 game. Playing another 16 is comparable to a conference tourney game that they played to get in the tournament to begin with.

 

[hawkforlife9]

I hope we're the first team in history to win 7 games in the NCAAs!

 

[tm3308]

Wow man I really can't believe you are arguing this... really. So until they add another - what you quantify as a round (boggle) then those games are not really not really part of the tournament? There are 68 teams so they have to bracket them somehow.

So until they expand the tournament to another entire "round" they aren't in the ncaa tourney?

lol... that's some backwards arsed logic of all time.

If they called these games what they are -- play-in games -- that'd be one thing. I'd still feel like, in the event we lost, that we didn't really make it. But calling the round of 64 the second round is ridiculous, and I've said that since the beginning. The NCAA had no problem calling it a play-in game when it was just two teams playing for a 16 seed. Now that power conference teams can play in these games, apparently they need a sexier title. But taking and wearing somebody else's name tag doesn't change who you are.

None of these teams actually have a seed yet. They're all playing for certain seeds in the round of 64. If we win tonight, then the debate's over and under any standard, we made it back to the Dance. But lose, and we didn't earn that 11 seed; Tennessee did. The first round that involves at least 2/3 of the field (in the event that this ever expands to something like 96 teams) is the first round of the Dance. Which, right now, is the round of 64.

 

[Foval21]

I go by one simple thing...can you place a bet in Vegas on Iowa winning the whole **** thing? The answer is yes, then they are in...May not feel like it (but I am sure some of you have been asked by a girl if you were in because it didn't feel like it to her...doesn't mean you aren't).

 

[Bigtenchamp]

If they called these games what they are -- play-in games -- that'd be one thing. I'd still feel like, in the event we lost, that we didn't really make it. But calling the round of 64 the second round is ridiculous, and I've said that since the beginning. The NCAA had no problem calling it a play-in game when it was just two teams playing for a 16 seed. Now that power conference teams can play in these games, apparently they need a sexier title. But taking and wearing somebody else's name tag doesn't change who you are.

None of these teams actually have a seed yet. They're all playing for certain seeds in the round of 64. If we win tonight, then the debate's over and under any standard, we made it back to the Dance. But lose, and we didn't earn that 11 seed; Tennessee did. The first round that involves at least 2/3 of the field (in the event that this ever expands to something like 96 teams) is the first round of the Dance. Which, right now, is the round of 64.

Oh so now its a seeding thing...they have to figure out some way to mathematically make the seeding work - so they have no choice but to do it this way.

So if made the tournament 96 teams then the hawks would be in the tournament... k gotcha.

making more sense all the time.

 

[83Hawk]

If these games are not play in games, then there never were any play in games, including the "Field of 65" days when you had a single 16/16 game, because that game was every bit as much a part of the tournament as the couple extra games are now. No one had a problem calling that one game a play in game back then. Dubbing it "the first four" doesn't change the meaning.

Incorrect. During the "Field of 65" days it actually was a play in game. If you won, you were in the tournament. If you lost, you were NOT considered to have been in.

With the 68 team format, all 68 teams are "in".

 

[Foval21]

Incorrect. During the "Field of 65" days it actually was a play in game. If you won, you were in the tournament. If you lost, you were NOT considered to have been in.

With the 68 team format, all 68 teams are "in".

Actually if you look it up all 65 teams are considered to be in the tourney in those yrs.

it was called the opening round game, followed by the first round, etc. in the tourney we had 4 of every seed except the 16th which was 5 teams but all 65 were considered tourney teams. It wasn't a play and you are in it was a win and you get to lose.

 

[ThunderHawk]

What's at halfcourt?

Thanks, and have a nice day.

 

[HawkeyeMHA]

Good argument but not so fast. Not in

 

[DMU27]

There are 351 teams that play NCAA Division 1 basketball. 283 of them can not be champions this year, 68 of them can. One of those 68 is Iowa therefore Iowa is in the tournament.

 

[83Hawk]

Actually if you look it up all 65 teams are considered to be in the tourney in those yrs.

it was called the opening round game, followed by the first round, etc. in the tourney we had 4 of every seed except the 16th which was 5 teams but all 65 were considered tourney teams. It wasn't a play and you are in it was a win and you get to lose.

If true, I stand corrected!

 

[kicker22]

I go by one simple thing...can you place a bet in Vegas on Iowa winning the whole **** thing? The answer is yes, then they are in...May not feel like it (but I am sure some of you have been asked by a girl if you were in because it didn't feel like it to her...doesn't mean you aren't).

This post is so sad. Luckily none of us at Hawkeyenation have that problem. I'm sure we're all as big as our egos.

 

[tm3308]

Has anyone actually said we aren't in and supported that argument using factual evidence? No. We all know the team is technically in. Whether or not it's technically true has never been the point.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

Has anyone actually said we aren't in and supported that argument using factual evidence? No. We all know the team is technically in. Whether or not it's technically true has never been the point.

Exactly. I fully concede that Iowa is officially considered to be "in" the Tournament. That doesn't mean that I don't still look at this situation as a play-in "situation", or maybe to say it another way: "a game Iowa needs to win to join the field of 64".