menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: Play in games
Page: 1 of 2
100%Cat
General User
Member Since: 1/17/2013
Post Count: 2,728
mail
100%Cat
mail
Posted: 3/17/2014 9:27 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Where do you folks side on the play in games idea?  For it or against it?  I think the part I have a problem with is the auto qualifiers, in my opinion, already played their way in.  Is getting a matchup against another 16-seed-to-be a "real" NCAA tournament game?  I say not really.  Is it a more winnable game than immediately facing a #1 seed, sure, but you can also lose the play in game after winning your auto bid and then not get to face a big time team.  Isn't that what the tourney is all about?  I do like the fringe at-large teams playing in a play in game, like Xavier-NC St this year.  To me, those are teams on the edge of making the tournament that should have to play their way in.  If OU won the MAC tourney and had to play one of the play in games, I'd feel like we got shafted, win or lose.

Thoughts?
UpSan Bobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/30/2005
Location: Upper Sandusky, OH
Post Count: 3,817
mail
UpSan Bobcat
mail
Posted: 3/17/2014 9:37 AM
settings_applications edit_note
I'm with you. I'd rather the last eight at-larges play the games in the "first round." But there are too many people who already complain that winners of these low-major conferences aren't any good and shouldn't even be in the tournament, so it will never happen.
colobobcat66
General User
C66
Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,744
person
mail
colobobcat66
mail
Posted: 3/17/2014 9:40 AM
settings_applications edit_note
I see where you're coming from and tend to agree with you. Play-in games just seem like another way to get 4 more teams in without increasing another whole round. 68 is really an odd number to me, why not 128? I definitely think that teams that won their auto bid should not have to play these games.
bornacatfan
General User
Member Since: 8/3/2006
Post Count: 5,752
mail
bornacatfan
mail
Posted: 3/17/2014 12:29 PM
settings_applications edit_note
UpSan Bobcat wrote:expand_more
I'm with you. I'd rather the last eight at-larges play the games in the "first round." But there are too many people who already complain that winners of these low-major conferences aren't any good and shouldn't even be in the tournament, so it will never happen.



Tennessee/Iowa/NC State/Xavier are not from low major conferences.Unfortunately, the UCSB's and such did not win in the OOC to bolster their cause.
bornacatfan
General User
Member Since: 8/3/2006
Post Count: 5,752
mail
bornacatfan
mail
Posted: 3/17/2014 12:32 PM
settings_applications edit_note
colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
I see where you're coming from and tend to agree with you. Play-in games just seem like another way to get 4 more teams in without increasing another whole round. 68 is really an odd number to me, why not 128? I definitely think that teams that won their auto bid should not have to play these games.


thank god for logic. Make the power conferences play 50% of their OOC games away or threaten them with further expansion. 128 is just one more day and all the regular season one bid champs are rewarded for a year long attention to taking care of biz. First time I ever heard that logic was listening to Bobby Knight explain it.
Pataskala
General User
P
Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,465
person
mail
Pataskala
mail
Posted: 3/17/2014 1:21 PM
settings_applications edit_note
I'm for either shrinking the field back to 64 or kicking it up to 80 and giving the first four seeds in each bracket a first-round bye.  As it is now, two #1s and two #5s or 6s get a bit of an advantage by playing teams that played in Dayton just two nights before (although it didn't work for #5Temps two years ago when #12USF beat them after winning a play-in game).  They could still do play-in games at Dayton and elsewhere, or do the first three rounds at eight sites beginning on Wednesday and running through Monday.
anorris
General User
Member Since: 7/7/2010
Location: Bristol, CT
Post Count: 2,262
mail
anorris
mail
Posted: 3/17/2014 1:45 PM
settings_applications edit_note
I think it should be the last 8 at-large (bubble) teams, in terms of fairness and competitiveness. The counterpoint to that is that the games still count, like when there was only 1, and that has meant $$$ for teams/conferences who otherwise aren't getting win shares due to being placed on the 16 line when they qualify.
UpSan Bobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/30/2005
Location: Upper Sandusky, OH
Post Count: 3,817
mail
UpSan Bobcat
mail
Posted: 3/17/2014 1:49 PM
settings_applications edit_note
bornacatfan wrote:expand_more
I'm with you. I'd rather the last eight at-larges play the games in the "first round." But there are too many people who already complain that winners of these low-major conferences aren't any good and shouldn't even be in the tournament, so it will never happen.



Tennessee/Iowa/NC State/Xavier are not from low major conferences.Unfortunately, the UCSB's and such did not win in the OOC to bolster their cause.

I'm talking about teams like Mount St. Mary's, Albany, Texas Southern and Cal Poly. I know people who think schools shouldn't get auto bids into the tournament, so I'm sure those same people are fine with those teams eliminating each other before playing in the next round. To me, these teams won their conference championships, so they deserve a shot. A lot of those teams prove to be a lot better than most people think.

 
Brufus
General User
B
Member Since: 12/13/2011
Location: Wherever Miami and Michigan suck
Post Count: 439
person
mail
Brufus
mail
Posted: 3/17/2014 1:58 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Just curious, what was the reason for having the play-in games in Dayton, even back when the tourney was only 65 teams? Don't get me wrong, I think Dayton is a great host, but does the NCAA have some history with the city?
brucecuth
General User
B
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Post Count: 1,855
person
mail
brucecuth
mail
Posted: 3/17/2014 2:34 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Brufus wrote:expand_more
Just curious, what was the reason for having the play-in games in Dayton, even back when the tourney was only 65 teams? Don't get me wrong, I think Dayton is a great host, but does the NCAA have some history with the city?


The linked article below gives you a good history of how Dayton's involvement in the "play in" game, then games, came about.

Despite the city's undisputed success as a host for this event, the NCAA has decided to explore its options.  Dayton is only assured of hosting the First Four though next year.  The NCAA has said it will accept bids from any city, including Dayton, for the First Four in subsequent years.  I'm sure the almighty dollar has something to do with the NCAA decision...

http://www.flyernews.com/fn_wp/dayton-leaving-mark-in-nca.../
100%Cat
General User
Member Since: 1/17/2013
Post Count: 2,728
mail
100%Cat
mail
Posted: 3/17/2014 2:43 PM
settings_applications edit_note
anorris wrote:expand_more
I think it should be the last 8 at-large (bubble) teams, in terms of fairness and competitiveness. The counterpoint to that is that the games still count, like when there was only 1, and that has meant $$$ for teams/conferences who otherwise aren't getting win shares due to being placed on the 16 line when they qualify.


Honestly this is what I assumed play in games would be when I heard it announced a few years back, which I thought was a good idea.  It seems right and fair to make the teams on the fringe of making the tourney play their way in.  Not a team(s) who just won their conference tourney for an automatic berth.  If someone needs a play in game, by logic it should be the bubble teams without an AQ. 

You can tell me a team like Albany or Cal Poly isn't going to win the tournament...and you're right.  But you know what? Neither is BYU or Nebraska, and those teams backed their way into the field with at-large berths.  Give the auto qualifiers the chance they deserve to play on Thurs/Fri and make the fringe at large's play for the right to make it to Thurs/Fri.
Last Edited: 3/17/2014 2:49:35 PM by 100%Cat
GoCats105
General User
GC105
Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 7,821
person
mail
GoCats105
mail
Posted: 3/17/2014 2:48 PM
settings_applications edit_note
bornacatfan wrote:expand_more
I see where you're coming from and tend to agree with you. Play-in games just seem like another way to get 4 more teams in without increasing another whole round. 68 is really an odd number to me, why not 128? I definitely think that teams that won their auto bid should not have to play these games.


thank god for logic. Make the power conferences play 50% of their OOC games away or threaten them with further expansion. 128 is just one more day and all the regular season one bid champs are rewarded for a year long attention to taking care of biz. First time I ever heard that logic was listening to Bobby Knight explain it.


I wouldn't mind an expansion, but are there really 60 more teams out there worthy of a shot to play for a national title? Especially knowing most of those 60 won't make it past the first weekend? What's the point? I think 96 makes a little more sense.

If they go that high, why not just make it like high school? Every team is in and play until you lose.
Last Edited: 3/17/2014 2:51:03 PM by GoCats105
Bobcatbob
General User
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Coolville, OH
Post Count: 1,351
mail
Bobcatbob
mail
Posted: 3/17/2014 2:52 PM
settings_applications edit_note
All these other good thoughts and arguments aside, how does it currently make sense to have a play-in match up of 11 or 12 seeds while a half dozen or more lower seeds get a play-in "bye"?.  Maybe it makes perfect sense in some universe but I just don't get it.  Isn't seeding intended to demonstrate your perceived level of competitiveness (respect?) coming into the draw?
TheBobcatBandit
General User
Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 618
mail
TheBobcatBandit
mail
Posted: 3/17/2014 2:56 PM
settings_applications edit_note
that's what I don't get. I would rather be a 12 seed with no play in than an 11 with the play in. Is it just me or is that not right. You should want to be a higher seed but with the way its set up I'd rather be a lower
Tom Valentino
General User
TV
Member Since: 3/14/2005
Location: Painesville, OH
Post Count: 280
person
mail
Tom Valentino
mail
Posted: 3/17/2014 2:58 PM
settings_applications edit_note
100%Cat wrote:expand_more
I think it should be the last 8 at-large (bubble) teams, in terms of fairness and competitiveness. The counterpoint to that is that the games still count, like when there was only 1, and that has meant $$$ for teams/conferences who otherwise aren't getting win shares due to being placed on the 16 line when they qualify.


Honestly this is what I assumed play in games would be when I heard it announced a few years back, which I thought was a good idea.  It seems right and fair to make the teams on the fringe of making the tourney play their way in.  Not a team(s) who just won their conference tourney for an automatic berth.  If someone needs a play in game, by logic it should be the bubble teams without an AQ. 

You can tell me a team like Albany or Cal Poly isn't going to win the tournament...and you're right.  But you know what? Neither is BYU or Nebraska, and those teams backed their way into the field with at-large berths.  Give the auto qualifiers the chance they deserve to play on Thurs/Fri and make the fringe at large's play for the right to make it to Thurs/Fri.

Didn't VCU make the Final Four after playing in the First Four in the first year the field expanded to 68? I wouldn't be so quick to summarily dismiss the last at-large teams to get in.

 
Donuts
General User
D
Member Since: 9/22/2010
Post Count: 734
person
mail
Donuts
mail
Posted: 3/17/2014 3:09 PM
settings_applications edit_note
GoCats105 wrote:expand_more
I wouldn't mind an expansion, but are there really 60 more teams out there worthy of a shot to play for a national title? Especially knowing most of those 60 won't make it past the first weekend? What's the point? I think 96 makes a little more sense.

If they go that high, why not just make it like high school? Every team is in and play until you lose.


Because 128 is not 342 or whatever the total is now. Pretty big difference. Even at 128, the percentage of teams in the tournament would not be higher than any other major sport in the USA besides MLB (33% of teams get in).

Tournament should be 128, or 96 at the smallest. Every tournament and regular season champion gets an auto bid.
100%Cat
General User
Member Since: 1/17/2013
Post Count: 2,728
mail
100%Cat
mail
Posted: 3/17/2014 3:11 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Tom Valentino wrote:expand_more
I think it should be the last 8 at-large (bubble) teams, in terms of fairness and competitiveness. The counterpoint to that is that the games still count, like when there was only 1, and that has meant $$$ for teams/conferences who otherwise aren't getting win shares due to being placed on the 16 line when they qualify.


Honestly this is what I assumed play in games would be when I heard it announced a few years back, which I thought was a good idea.  It seems right and fair to make the teams on the fringe of making the tourney play their way in.  Not a team(s) who just won their conference tourney for an automatic berth.  If someone needs a play in game, by logic it should be the bubble teams without an AQ. 

You can tell me a team like Albany or Cal Poly isn't going to win the tournament...and you're right.  But you know what? Neither is BYU or Nebraska, and those teams backed their way into the field with at-large berths.  Give the auto qualifiers the chance they deserve to play on Thurs/Fri and make the fringe at large's play for the right to make it to Thurs/Fri.

Didn't VCU make the Final Four after playing in the First Four in the first year the field expanded to 68? I wouldn't be so quick to summarily dismiss the last at-large teams to get in.

 


Sure they did.  Did they win the tournament?  I didn't say they couldn't win some games, I said they aren't winning the tournament.

It makes sense because those little schools earned their right to play in the tournament by winning their conference's auto bid by virtue of winning a conference tournament (or in the case of the Ivy, winning the regular season title).  If they don't deserve to be there, then remove the auto bid from that conference.  As it stands, they do have an automatic bid that they earned through winning.  At large teams, while they may be better teams in most cases, did not win their way in with an automatic bid. 

Making these auto qualifiers go to a play in game is like a guy/gal paying for a ticket to see a concert, then when they get there they get through the arena doors but are told they can't actually go in and sit down...they have to listen from out by the concession stand.  Because hey, you got in the building with your ticket and you can kinda hear it from the concession stand... 
Last Edited: 3/17/2014 3:12:39 PM by 100%Cat
bornacatfan
General User
Member Since: 8/3/2006
Post Count: 5,752
mail
bornacatfan
mail
Posted: 3/17/2014 3:50 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Tom Valentino wrote:expand_more

Didn't VCU make the Final Four after playing in the First Four in the first year the field expanded to 68? I wouldn't be so quick to summarily dismiss the last at-large teams to get in.

 


Yes Greg Shaheen addressed that on the Dakich Show today. He said the group of folks in the room wresteled with that as most of them knew how good VCU was and what they were capable of.....Shaheen covereda lot of ground on that show and made a lot of things clearer as to how they look at things. I REALLY hope that podcast gets up there on 1070thefan.com

For the record the 128 came out of RMK's mouth and made a lot of sense the way he presented it. My biggest complaint continues to be the inequity in scheduling the majors and the home court advantage held during the year. Hard to fix your RPI when you are at such a disadvantage scheduling. Shaheen aslo touched on this. He is talking to the SEC about playing OOC on the road and the entire ncaa about integrating the season rather than having a distininct OOC and Conference season. Fascinating stuff
bornacatfan
General User
Member Since: 8/3/2006
Post Count: 5,752
mail
bornacatfan
mail
Posted: 3/17/2014 3:53 PM
settings_applications edit_note
UpSan Bobcat wrote:expand_more
]

I'm talking about teams like Mount St. Mary's, Albany, Texas Southern and Cal Poly. I know people who think schools shouldn't get auto bids into the tournament, so I'm sure those same people are fine with those teams eliminating each other before playing in the next round. To me, these teams won their conference championships, so they deserve a shot. A lot of those teams prove to be a lot better than most people think.

 


Those are teams that took an autobid by getting hot in their tourney. Unless you are totally going to eliminate those conferences which have teams like UCSB, Robby MO and such that have advanced a rounhd or so then you are not going to eliminate their autobid.

The Texas Southern team is in the last four which the committee realizes that they are part of the Historically Black Universities and does treat them specially as "they realize they are a disadvantaged population that you give a special chance to" (not my words) and put one of them in the tourney.
OU_Country
General User
Member Since: 12/6/2005
Location: On the road between Athens and Madison County
Post Count: 8,401
mail
OU_Country
mail
Posted: 3/17/2014 3:58 PM
settings_applications edit_note
bornacatfan wrote:expand_more
I see where you're coming from and tend to agree with you. Play-in games just seem like another way to get 4 more teams in without increasing another whole round. 68 is really an odd number to me, why not 128? I definitely think that teams that won their auto bid should not have to play these games.


thank god for logic. Make the power conferences play 50% of their OOC games away or threaten them with further expansion. 128 is just one more day and all the regular season one bid champs are rewarded for a year long attention to taking care of biz. First time I ever heard that logic was listening to Bobby Knight explain it.


I'd be happy if the 'power conferences' were required to play 3-4 OOC games away from their friendly confines at schools with RPI's that are LOWER than theirs was the year before.  It would make the evaluation of the at-large schools a much better comparison.   I also wish the committee would just evaluate at-large's based on OOC schedule, and whether or not you were able to win on a neutral floor or on the road.  All of our friendly O$U fans couldn't imagine the idea that their schedule in December is weak, but unfortunately, they aren't close to the only program who does this.
100%Cat
General User
Member Since: 1/17/2013
Post Count: 2,728
mail
100%Cat
mail
Posted: 3/17/2014 4:18 PM
settings_applications edit_note
bornacatfan wrote:expand_more

Didn't VCU make the Final Four after playing in the First Four in the first year the field expanded to 68? I wouldn't be so quick to summarily dismiss the last at-large teams to get in.

 


Yes Greg Shaheen addressed that on the Dakich Show today. He said the group of folks in the room wresteled with that as most of them knew how good VCU was and what they were capable of.....Shaheen covereda lot of ground on that show and made a lot of things clearer as to how they look at things. I REALLY hope that podcast gets up there on 1070thefan.com

For the record the 128 came out of RMK's mouth and made a lot of sense the way he presented it. My biggest complaint continues to be the inequity in scheduling the majors and the home court advantage held during the year. Hard to fix your RPI when you are at such a disadvantage scheduling. Shaheen aslo touched on this. He is talking to the SEC about playing OOC on the road and the entire ncaa about integrating the season rather than having a distininct OOC and Conference season. Fascinating stuff


He gave the same interview on The Herd on ESPN Radio around 12:15-12:30 today.  I'm pretty sure they podcast everything so you should be able to find it there.
Ohio69
General User
O69
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 3,124
person
mail
Ohio69
mail
Posted: 3/17/2014 4:30 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Hate the expansion past 64 teams.

Hate play in games.

There is no perfect answer.  I had hoped reasonable minds would be able to settle on keeping it at 64 teams and realize that means a few teams like SMU or Southern Mississippi or Toledo whatever are going to be ticked off every year.  That's just life.  Get over it.

I have no logical reasons for my opinion other than 64 teams worked great.  Thursday through Sunday games for a few weekends and crown a champion.  Perfect.  I don't think the system needed to be tweaked at all.

But Hey, WMU can now tell recruits they made it to the second round of the NCAA tournament in 2014.......
Last Edited: 3/17/2014 4:31:40 PM by Ohio69
Big Willy
General User
BW
Member Since: 12/29/2004
Post Count: 197
person
mail
Big Willy
mail
Posted: 3/17/2014 4:33 PM
settings_applications edit_note
I don't see anything wrong with the First Four the way it is. Yes, it is the First Four, not play-in games. It is part of the tournament. If you have ever attended one you would know the players consider it part of the tournament, the fans in attendance consider it part of the tournament, and the teams are treated like royalty. If you don't believe me pick up some tickets and go see Xavier and their fans tomorrow night. Word is that the North Carolina State allotment is also sold out. I would think there will be a lot of Tennessee fans there also. As far as the auto bids, these are the four worst teams in the tournament, and since a #16 seed has never beaten a #1 seed, it gives these teams a chance to win a game.  
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,580
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 3/17/2014 5:46 PM
settings_applications edit_note
anorris wrote:expand_more
I think it should be the last 8 at-large (bubble) teams, in terms of fairness and competitiveness. The counterpoint to that is that the games still count, like when there was only 1, and that has meant $$$ for teams/conferences who otherwise aren't getting win shares due to being placed on the 16 line when they qualify.


Yep, that's why I'm fully in favor of them. Money for teams that need it!
cc-cat
General User
C
Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 4,016
person
mail
cc-cat
mail
Posted: 3/17/2014 7:02 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Ohio69 wrote:expand_more
Hate the expansion past 64 teams.

Hate play in games.

There is no perfect answer.  I had hoped reasonable minds would be able to settle on keeping it at 64 teams and realize that means a few teams like SMU or Southern Mississippi or Toledo whatever are going to be ticked off every year.  That's just life.  Get over it.


NC State, Xavier, Iowa, Tenn.  all get booted.  And you are back to 64.  They didn't win their conference and they have zero chance of winning the Tournament. 
Showing Messages: 1 - 25 of 27
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)