Board wants "play-ins" to have more cache

[SelectionSunday]

Lost in the shuffle of official word that the tournament will expand to 68 was this:

"The board gave unanimous consent to the 68-team field with a caveat -- it wants the 'play-in' games to have more significance."

There's really only one way to make the play-in games take on more significance, isn't there? That would be by forcing the final 8 at-large teams to play in the "Opening Round" instead of 8 automatic qualifiers from smaller conferences. Having four 16-vs.-17 games on the opening day of the tournament (Tuesday) won't be any more interesting than having one (as in the past).

Will the NCAA/NCAA Tournament Board have the guts to force some of the bigger schools to play on that first day? I hope they do, even though it's very possible the Gophers could be one of those 8 playing in the Opening Round. I like the idea of having interesting games straight from the get-go (Tuesday).

The final decision regarding the new format must be approved by the Men's Basketball Tournament Committee, expected to happen by July

 

[JimmyJamesMD]

Beautiful

SS, that would be a beautiful thing.

That Tuesday would be insanly fun.

Super Tuesday

 

[Bad Gopher]

This is where things do start to get weird, though. The 64-team field was simple, elegant and equitable. Picking from the middle of the field to find eight teams for the play-in spectacle on the sole basis of optimizing the entertainment value...it seems like tinkering and goes against the natural order of things. I'm not sure that a deserving 11 seed would take it well that they need to play an extra game - and 3 games in 5 or 6 days - when a 12 seed would not have to jump through that same hoop.

 

[GopherJake]

It's so simple. Take the 8 bubble teams and let them decide it on the court. 8 teams play for the four #12 seeds.

Now that would be interesting.

 

[Robb]

I'm not sure that a deserving 11 seed would take it well that they need to play an extra game - and 3 games in 5 or 6 days - when a 12 seed would not have to jump through that same hoop.

The difference is...the 12 seed would have won their tournament. They won their way into the field and that's pretty black/white. The bottom 8 at-large teams, however, were selected subjectively. As such, I think it's more equitable that they are the play-in games (also more interesting). The committee would admit that it's an inexact science. So have them "win their way in" just like the small schools had to.

It's always bothered me that teams (like us this year) that fill out the bracket through selection get a pass while a team that wins their conference tournament gets marginalized at the play-in round (almost like not getting to actually play in the tournament).

JMO.

 

[SelectionSunday]

Reward the "double winners" is another option?

If the NCAA decides to retain the four Opening Round Games as 16 vs.17 matchups, one suggestion I like -- with credit to GH poster Ope for this one -- is that any team winning both its regular season (must be #1 seed for conference tourney) & conference tournament titles would be exempt from the Opening Round. There should be a reward for schools coming from traditional 1-bid leagues. This, of course, is provided there are no more than 23 "double winners" among the 31 automatic bids.

For example, this year there were 16 teams that won both their regular season and tournament championship: Duke (ACC), Temple (A-10), Ohio State (Big 10), Kansas (Big 12), UCSB (Big West), Old Dominion (Colonial), Butler (Horizon), Siena (MAAC), Morgan State (MEAC), Northern Iowa (Missouri Valley), Murray State (Ohio Valley), Lehigh (Patriot), Kentucky (SEC), Wofford (Southern), Sam Houston State (Southland) and Oakland (Summit).

What it would mean is schools from traditional 1-bid leagues like UCSB, Siena, Morgan State, Murray State, Lehigh, Wofford, Sam Houston State & Oakland all would have been guaranteed no worse than a #15 seed. May not sound like much, but nevertheless at minimum it would be a small reward for showing regular season and conference tournament excellence. ... avoiding the Opening Round and not having to play a #1 seed right out of the gate.

That would still leave plenty of room for the Selection Committee to pick out the bottom 8 teams for the Opening Round games. This year it would have included the likes of Arkansas-Pine Bluff, East Tennessee State, Montana, North Texas, Ohio, Robert Morris, Vermont & Winthrop.

 

[Bad Gopher]

The difference is...the 12 seed would have won their tournament. They won their way into the field and that's pretty black/white. The bottom 8 at-large teams, however, were selected subjectively. As such, I think it's more equitable that they are the play-in games (also more interesting). The committee would admit that it's an inexact science. So have them "win their way in" just like the small schools had to.

It's always bothered me that teams (like us this year) that fill out the bracket through selection get a pass while a team that wins their conference tournament gets marginalized at the play-in round (almost like not getting to actually play in the tournament).

JMO.

I knew somebody would say that. But it's likely that the 11 seed would have won the 12 seed's tournament. The logical extension of the 'conference champion' angle is, why don't we just seed the conference champions first and the at-large's after them? Instead, we (rightly) seed them based on HOW GOOD THEY ARE. I don't think you can have it both ways within the same system.

 

[SomeGopherFan]

I am actually amazed at how many people are in attendance at the play in game in Dayton right now. Though I like the 'double winner' exemption previously described, in terms of adding "cache" to the games, I think that is a pretty tough task aside from either waving the no home court rule for this round and maybe let the #16 seeds play at home, or change the seeding so it's not a 16 vs 17 game as previously posted (...which I would be against - I don't like the idea of doing that just for entertainment purposes).

 

[Robb]

I knew somebody would say that. But it's likely that the 11 seed would have won the 12 seed's tournament. The logical extension of the 'conference champion' angle is, why don't we just seed the conference champions first and the at-large's after them? Instead, we (rightly) seed them based on HOW GOOD THEY ARE. I don't think you can have it both ways within the same system.

You're right. Not sure how the seeding can be accomplished. The variance in strength between the last 8 teams would be large enough that you couldn't just seed the winner of the game into a slot. One game might have one winner which would be a 10 vs a 12 if the other team won. It still feels like there has to be a more equitable solution. Gotta think on it more.

 

[OSUfan]

If you want better play-in games, you should be in favor of expanding the field even more, such as a 72-team field - you can't deny that a 96-team field would surely lead to more interesting play-in games than the 65-team field or the 68-team field. If you say you don't want 96 and want the play-in games to be nothing more than second-rate, I'd agree with your logic; however, arguing for better play-in games is a slippery slope & whether you think so or not, that logic suggests you would be in favor of even more expansion. Perhaps that's up the NCAA's sleeve - get people hooked on more interesting play-in games and then use their popularity as a basis for more expansion.