Play in game?

[Fryowa]

Calling it First Four is the equivalent of a participation trophy. It’s a play-in game.

This.

 

[lightning1]

Do you know the NET of Ohio State and Minnesota? It would be hard to make a case for them if Iowa gets left out. And would leave the B1G with five bids, quite a comedown from the eight or nine that the talking heads brought up all year.

Of course there is still the BTT to play. An opportunity for everyone to raise their NET. And it isn't unheard of for a B1G team to get skipped over and for a lower conference finishing team to steal their bid. In 1998 Iowa finished ahead of Indiana AND swept them head to head. Indiana had a decided edge in every other metric, none the least of which was the star power of their coach, and stole the NCAA bid.

#52 and 56 respectively. If we lose today and our first round BTT game and those 2 teams win a couple of games, I could see them in the top 50 of the net and us sitting around the 55 spot.

 

[Northside Hawk]

Oddly enough, one First Four has made the Final Four (VCU), and it happened before we had a #16 beat a #1. Of course VCU was an 11-seed, ot a 16, so there's that...

And Chaka Smart has been riding that wave of glory ever sense. As Texas has since found out, it might as well been a wave of mutilation, only the Pixies sang of it better than Chaka coaches it.

 

[Northside Hawk]

Iowa will finish right around 500. Some of those teams are hot and some are not. If I'm on the committee I'm going to weigh heavily on how they've been playing recently.

Then Iowa State is in big trouble. Marquette too. Only Lundadi still has the Clones as a five.

 

[Bigtenchamp]

I dont think we the play in game crowd fail at logic. Looking at the logical dynamics, this is a play in game for entry into the field of 64. When the NCAA chose to add these games, even they called them play in games back in 2011. The fact that they changed the terminology to be more friendly and all inclusive does not change the fact that logically these are play in games.

People can title it whatever they want.. the point is its the ncaa tournament.

 

[HawksMN]

The Clowns to me have got to be 7 seed territory with Hawks 8/9 only because Iowa is getting embarrased in games and ISU simply losing all of them in single digits.

 

[sioux34]

People can title it whatever they want.. the point is its the ncaa tournament.

A tournament with play in games.

 

[Bigtenchamp]

Going by some of this brilliant logic.. only the final 8 is the "actual tournament" the rest are "play in games"

Since back in 1939 that's how the tournament started.

 

[Bigtenchamp]

A tournament with play in games.

You can say that over and over but it doesn't mean anything.

As I said above the orginal tournmanet was only 8 teams... so by your logic everything else are play in games.

 

[mopkins]

The only people that think of it at part of the tourney are the unfortunate teams that get stuck there.
It's a playin game

Except it's not. There are more D1 teams now than ever before, and more AQs than ever before, so the field has expanded as a result.

 

[Bigtenchamp]

Except it's not. There are more D1 teams now than ever before, and more AQs than ever before, so the field has expanded as a result.

Right... just like its been expanded since 1939.

 

[mopkins]

The big ten tournament used to only have 11 teams. So now that the big ten has expanded the first round of games are "play-in" games

See how stupid that sounds?

 

[Bigtenchamp]

The big ten tournament used to only have 11 teams. So now that the big ten has expanded the first round of games are "play-in" games

See how stupid that sounds?

Another pretty clear example...

 

[83Hawk]

I dont think we the play in game crowd fail at logic. Looking at the logical dynamics, this is a play in game for entry into the field of 64. When the NCAA chose to add these games, even they called them play in games back in 2011. The fact that they changed the terminology to be more friendly and all inclusive does not change the fact that logically these are play in games.

And then those are play in games to get to the field of 32.

Yes, you fail at logic.

If the First Four teams are not in the NCAA tournament according to you, then why don’t the two losing teams play in the NIT or CBI? Hmmm?

 

[1977Hawkeye]

People can title it whatever they want.. the point is its the ncaa tournament.

And the ncaa can title them whatever they want.. They are play in games.

It was called "the play in game" when it was the Field of 65, where you had two 16 seeds playing each other to join the Field of 64.

So they added one more of those games, and two sets of 11 seeds also doing the same thing. Big deal. FIRST round of the tournament starts Thursday. It's not calle

This is completely false according to the NCAA website. See my post above. Yes, it may be semantics, but calling them play in games is simply incorrect. Saying they are play in games doesn’t make it so.

But I agree.....you don’t want to be playing in Dayton.

I'm aware of what the NCAA calls these games. I also remember when they added one more team and made it the field of 65 about 20 years ago, it was two 16 seeds playing to join the tournament and it was called "the play in game".

So they added one more of those games, and two sets of 11 seeds doing the same thing, and came up with a catchy label for them rather than "play in games". So what?

It doesn't change what these games are. That's my point. As we've agreed on, it's semantics.

 

[83Hawk]

And the ncaa can title them whatever they want.. They are play in games.

It was called "the play in game" when it was the Field of 65, where you had two 16 seeds playing each other to join the Field of 64.

So they added one more of those games, and two sets of 11 seeds also doing the same thing. Big deal. FIRST round of the tournament starts Thursday. It's not calle


I'm aware of what the NCAA calls these games. I also remember when they added one more team and made it the field of 65 about 20 years ago, it was two 16 seeds playing to join the tournament and it was called "the play in game".

So they added one more of those games, and two sets of 11 seeds doing the same thing, and came up with a catchy label for them rather than "play in games". So what?

It doesn't change what these games are. As we've agreed on, it's semantics. That's my point.

So....you agree the NCAA refers to them as tournament games, but you just choose to call them play in games instead (even though it is incorrect)? Fine, whatever.

What the game was called for the field of 65 games is irrelevant. There are 68 teams now. By your logic, only the final 8 teams are actually in the tournament, since that is how many were in when it started. Everything over that are play in games. And what about when there were byes? The teams that didn’t get byes must have played play in games.

And if the Dayton teams are not in the NCAA tournament according to you...why don’t the losers play in the NIT or CBI?

You are wrong. You can try and spin it however you want, but you are wrong.

 

[WindsorHawk]

And the ncaa can title them whatever they want.. They are play in games.

It was called "the play in game" when it was the Field of 65, where you had two 16 seeds playing each other to join the Field of 64.

So they added one more of those games, and two sets of 11 seeds also doing the same thing. Big deal. FIRST round of the tournament starts Thursday. It's not calle


I'm aware of what the NCAA calls these games. I also remember when they added one more team and made it the field of 65 about 20 years ago, it was two 16 seeds playing to join the tournament and it was called "the play in game".

So they added one more of those games, and two sets of 11 seeds doing the same thing, and came up with a catchy label for them rather than "play in games". So what?

It doesn't change what these games are. That's my point. As we've agreed on, it's semantics.

Yeah. The NCAA should defer to a committee of HN posters that say NCAA Tournament games aren’t NCAA Tournament games. Time for those of us that know the NCAA Tournament has 68 teams to leave this thread and let the lost hug it out.

 

[83Hawk]

Yeah. The NCAA should defer to a committee of HN posters that say NCAA Tournament games aren’t NCAA Tournament games. Time for those of us that know the NCAA Tournament has 68 teams to leave this thread and let the lost hug it out.

Agree. I’m done. The play in game people are arguing for the sake of arguing. They are wrong and it is sad they continue to make fools of themselves.

A team is either in or out. There is no in between.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

So....you agree the NCAA refers to them as tournament games, but you just choose to call them play in games instead (even though it is incorrect)? Fine, whatever.

What the game was called for the field of 65 games is irrelevant. There are 68 teams now. By your logic, only the final 8 teams are actually in the tournament, since that is how many were in when it started. Everything over that are play in games. And what about when there were byes? The teams that didn’t get byes must have played play in games.

And if the Dayton teams are not in the NCAA tournament according to you...why don’t the losers play in the NIT or CBI?

You are wrong. You can try and spin it however you want, but you are wrong.

Whether the loser of these games goes to the NIT or not is irrelevant.

The loser of the field of 65 "play on game" didn't go to the NIT, either. So by your logic that game was also part of the tournament despite it being called the play in game.

So which is it? Either the old play in game was part of the tournament, or the today's First Four is not.

Can't have it both ways.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

Agree. I’m done. The play in game people are arguing for the sake of arguing. They are wrong and it is sad they continue to make fools of themselves.

A team is either in or out. There is no in between.

They aren't in until they make it to the first round. That's where I stand.