I pit everybody who says "play-in game"

The BBQ Pit
1

For some reason, a number of media outlets - including some from universities - refer to the “first four” games in the NCAA Division I men’s basketball tournament as “play-in games,” implying that the four teams that lose were not actually “in the tournament.” The NCAA tried to remedy this by calling the round of 64 the “second round” for a few years, but, you guessed it, too many people complained that this meant the “first round” games were actually part of the tournament.

Guess what? They are - and this goes back to when it was just one game in Dayton. The NCAA says there are 68 teams in the tournament, not 64. Yes, it is, in effect, a 128-team tournament with 60 byes in the first round; how about that?

IIRC, there were actual “play-in games” when the field expanded from 48 to 64; because of the number of conferences, six of them were told before the season began that their champion would have to face another of the six just before the bracket was announced, and only the three winners would be in the tournament. I think they quickly decided to get rid of some of the automatic conference champion spots to get it back down to 64.

2

Play-in game. :smiley:

3

Oh yeah? Huh! <continues putting clothes in locker>

4

I’ve never known of anyone who liked the labeling of the round of 64 the “2nd round.”

MLB expanded a few years ago to include another wild card team and these commonly are known as “play-in games”, so I don’t see a problem.

5

I resent Conference Champions or Conference Tourney winners being placed in the First 4 because to me they ARE “play in” games. When you win a conference tourney there is a promise that means your ticket is punched for the Big Dance, which lets be honest, to the public, really starts Thursday with the Field of 64. NO ONE gets excited about Tuesday and Wednesday in Dayton and no one wants to be in the First 4: to me its a punishment.

For that reason I feel the First 4 should be 8 “bubble” teams that neither won their Conference or Conference title.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

6

I think every conference champ deserves to be in the final 64. The 8 play-in teams should be non-champions only. Each of them should wind up with a 16 seed. To me it makes no sense that half of the play-in winners get 16 seeds and half get something better. Every 15 seed should be considered better than every play-in team.

7

Where else are you supposed to play if not in game? Play in street?

8

I believe the correct term is Bison.

9

Well, they tried playing the out game but, y’know… it’s cold.

10

I must be out of the loop … I’m pissed about ESPN not posting the Women’s Bracket yet … WTF?

11

I just pit the whole idea of “playoff madness” every time I turn around. The craziness about the craziness of the craziness just effing wears me out.

12

So, you’re mad in March?

13

That’s in between “Furious in February” and “Angry in April”, right?

14

No, just wishing for Mutual Assured Destruction this year so the males of the US can finally fucking grow up. Being interested in a sport is one thing. Following a team is another. Being March Hare fucking batshit over every team and bracket and breakout and spread and whatnot for a solid month of incomprehensible matchups is… the odd combination of testosterone-fueled juvenalia.

15

You mean the bracket that hasn’t even been released yet?

16

Well it’d called ESPN, isn’t it?

17

They don’t need a bracket- just give the trophy to UConn and skip the rest.

18

There are several teams in the NIT, that would love to be in the First 4.

19

Play-in game makes more sense than Round 1. I think the teams that get bounced in those games should go directly to the 2nd round of the NIT.

20

A first round where 88% of the teams get a bye isn’t much of a first round.

Even in the pro teams, the wild card games aren’t really considered part of the play-offs.