stever20 wrote:dmac80 wrote:interesting. Can anyone explain the whole play in game thing? I don't get how two of the play in games are 16 v 16 but the other two are 12v 12 and 11 v11. The year prior it was 11v11 and 13v13 along with 4 16 seeds playing. Is it strictly to drive interest in the play in game? Seems to me it should be 8 16 seeds playing for a spot in the field of 64.
What it is- the final 4 at large teams play each other, while the bottom 4 16 seeds play each other.
I do agree it should be the bottom 8 teams. I'm hoping the F5 and BE push this to change quite frankly...
Obviously the main reason is TV ratings. But don't count on the F5+BE to push for a change. A team that wins a play in game, but loses in the first round gets 2 Tournament Credits for the Conference. However a team that loses in the first round without playing in the play in game, only gets one. That helps the F5+BE (Maybe A10, Mountain West, and WCC) get an extra two credits to split between them every year.
On a side note I think that it would be better for the one bid league schools to have the bottom 8 play each other. First those teams that are usually just lambs to the slaughter have a chance to win a game in the tourney. Second, the best thing about the tourney is upsets. My absolute favorite weekend is sports is the 1st and second round of the tourney. My favorite non Xavier Tournament moment was when 15 Santa Clara, took out 2 Seed Arizona in 1993. I know there have been a couple of times a two seed has gone down, but if you have the worst 8 teams play in the first 4, what used to be a 14 under the 64 team format, becomes a 15 playing a two seed. You might see a few more massive upsets, and maybe the first ever 1 seed go down eventually. This would still be rare, but there is nothing I love more than watching a team seeded to go to the sweet 16 lose in the first round (Well unless its a Big East team getting upset).
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:46 pm