NCAA tournament play-in games

**TigerCyJM** · 01-13-2013, 09:45 AM

Can somebody explain to me why there are two play in games for 16 seeds but also for like 11 seeds? It seems like the random 11 seeds just get punished, so it should be the 16 seeds because they're the lowest, right? Why is this?

**NATEizKING** · 01-13-2013, 09:47 AM

Play-ins are worthless

**keepngoal** · 01-13-2013, 09:47 AM

I think up to 11s are typically at large... Where above that seed typically are win ins from conference tourneys.

**cyclones500** · 01-13-2013, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by TigerCyJM

Can somebody explain to me why there are two play in games for 16 seeds but also for like 11 seeds? It seems like the random 11 seeds just get punished, so it should be the 16 seeds because they're the lowest, right? Why is this?

Instead of going one way or the other — either shifting all the seeds down to make the play-ins between 16 seeds, or making all of the intro-round at-large matchups — they decided to split the difference, for some reason.

Plus, it isn't strictly 11-seed play-in for the at-large teams. So far in two seasons, it's been at 12 and 14 (2011) and 11 and 12 (2012). Another random, unbalanced aspect about this 68-team idea.

**theshadow** · 01-13-2013, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by keepngoal

I think up to 11s are typically at large... Where above that seed typically are win ins from conference tourneys.

Yup. Basically making the lowest at-large teams prove their worth against each other.

**alarson** · 01-13-2013, 10:45 AM

It should be the 16 seeds (followed by 15 seeds, etc) in all the play-in games if they are going to have them. Minor conference teams have plenty of chances to prove their worth by scheduling in their nonconference. Its not usually great teams getting those 16 seeds (generally they arent even one of the top 70 teams and to be honest they deserve the spot less than some at larges that end up in the NIT), but teams that have little to no resume that just happened to get in from a lucky conference tourney showing. Those 11 seeds have done more and proven more than those 16 seeds have, and making them 'play-in' is just punishing them for being in a better conference that deserves multiple bids.

**HoopsTournament** · 01-13-2013, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by TigerCyJM

Can somebody explain to me why there are two play in games for 16 seeds but also for like 11 seeds? It seems like the random 11 seeds just get punished, so it should be the 16 seeds because they're the lowest, right? Why is this?

Money. They would not get any to come to the game or watch if they had all 16 seeds for the "First Four" games.

**3TrueFans** · 01-13-2013, 11:54 AM

Because NCAA.

**Wesley** · 01-13-2013, 11:58 AM

Every game is a play-in game until you are the champion. Hey, it is a good chance to be ion national TV.

**HoopsTournament** · 01-13-2013, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley

Every game is a play-in game until you are the champion. Hey, it is a good chance to be ion national TV.

I never liked the term "Play-In" because those teams are already IN the tournament. They just aren't in the round of 64. So your point is well taken. The round of 64 are play-in games to the round of 32 and so on. I like to call them Opening Round or Preliminary Round. I also don't like calling them First Round and the round of 64 Second Round because 60 teams are playing their first game in the "Second Round".

**everyyard** · 01-13-2013, 12:40 PM

Let me simplify your life. Any time you ask why and the question involves the NCAA, the answer involves $$$.

**cyclones500** · 01-14-2013, 12:22 AM

Originally Posted by HoopsTournament

I never liked the term "Play-In" because those teams are already IN the tournament. They just aren't in the round of 64. So your point is well taken. The round of 64 are play-in games to the round of 32 and so on. I like to call them Opening Round or Preliminary Round. I also don't like calling them First Round and the round of 64 Second Round because 60 teams are playing their first game in the "Second Round".

I also HATE that the First Four (as they call it, which is cool with me) is considered first round now. It causes unnecessary confusion, since Th-Fri had been "First Round" for 25 seasons.

Until they fix that, I'm calling it "play-in"

**Wesley** · 01-14-2013, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by cyclones500

I also HATE that the First Four (as they call it, which is cool with me) is considered first round now. It causes unnecessary confusion, since Th-Fri had been "First Round" for 25 seasons.

Until they fix that, I'm calling it "play-in"

Call it a prequel....

**BloodyBuddy** · 01-14-2013, 08:17 AM

I hate the play-ins also, and wish they would not have them at all. But given the current setup, I think all the play-ins should be for the 11 seeds. Why should a 1 seed get punished and have to play a harder team because of a play-in?

**HFCS** · 01-14-2013, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by alarson

It should be the 16 seeds (followed by 15 seeds, etc) in all the play-in games if they are going to have them. Minor conference teams have plenty of chances to prove their worth by scheduling in their nonconference. Its not usually great teams getting those 16 seeds (generally they arent even one of the top 70 teams and to be honest they deserve the spot less than some at larges that end up in the NIT), but teams that have little to no resume that just happened to get in from a lucky conference tourney showing. Those 11 seeds have done more and proven more than those 16 seeds have, and making them 'play-in' is just punishing them for being in a better conference that deserves multiple bids.

Great point, the minor conference teams with a good non-conf win or two are never a 16 or even 15 for a reason. No matter how bad your conference, beat one good team non-conf and you're not in danger of a 16 seed. It's not asking the world.