In our paper, the bracket lists a play-in game for the Midwest, South, and West. But in place of the play-in winner in the East (16th seed), they list Stetson. But the play-in game listed is Montana State/Grambling and then there’s no indication that the winner will be the 16th seed. The other three play-in games are listed and in their respective seedings is a place holder, e.g. Boise St./Colorado in the South. I’m sorry I can’t make this more clear, but I don’t know how Stetson took the place of the winner of the play-in game (which is listed as scheduled to be played Wednesday). Any help, Dopers?
Never mind. I see that the midwest has two play-in games and the East has none, and that’s where the “missing” game went. Go back to work.
The play-in games are not always for a 16 seed. This year it looks like two play-in games are for 16 seeds (West and South regions), and the other two are for 10 seeds (South and Midwest).
It does seem odd to me that one region has two play-in games and another region has none. Maybe that’s normal and I just haven’t been paying attention.
Indeed so. At least 2 of the games are usually for 16 seeds but it’s not all of them.
Sign of getting old that I didn’t realize it’s been years and years since there was only the one play-in for a 16 seed.
Sign I’m getting old and crotchety - I’m not going to call them the “First Four” or whatever nonsense, especially since the NCAA is now using it as part of the ‘brand’
Ever since the tournament expanded from 64 to 68, the First Four games (I for one do not call them “play-in games” as they are not “playing their way into” anything - they are already in the tournament) have always been two games between 16 seeds and two games between the last four non-conference champions.
I am not entirely sure myself how the committee decides who each winner would play next, but I think that keeping the travel distance as short as possible has something to do with it. I see that two of the winners will play in Charlotte, and the other two in Indianapolis.
Right, except that almost always the #1 seed in the West is not from anywhere close to the West; UNC is the 1 seed in that region this year.
This has always kinda pissed me off. You’ve got 4 teams who have won their conference tournament and earned the automatic bid to the Big Dance. Oh, but wait. Let’s send them to Dayton to play each other to see who actually gets the #16 seed. Then make them travel again to play a #1 seed two days later.
Instead of having these four teams play in Dayton, how about we put the last 8 teams that made the field there and have them play each other?
This year the 16 seeds that are playing each other are Montana St/Grambling and Howard/Wagner. The other first four teams are all playing for a #10 seed: Boise St/Colorado and Virginia/Colorado St. I propose that the four automatic bids be placed in the tournament, and they be replaced in the First Four by other at-large qualifiers, like Nevada, Northwestern, TCU, and Texas A&M.
The way it is “supposed to” work, according to the “Principles and Procedures for Establishing the Bracket” document, is, the top four teams are the #1 seeds in each region, with the overall #1 seed getting its choice, and then the other three being placed to their “home” region as possible, but obviously if all four #1 seeds are from the east, the #1 team in the west region isn’t going to be from the west. The four #2 seeds are then placed, taking geography into account, although the committee also takes relative seeds into account; the #5 overall team will not have to play the #1 overall team just because they are from the same region. Also, two teams from the same conference cannot be seeded 4 or higher in the same region if at all possible.
Or just, like, suck it up and keep them out entirely. There are already about 30 at-large spots which almost all go to major conference teams. If you can’t get one you don’t deserve to be there.
What baffles me is that both Colorado and Colorado State are involved in play-ins for the #10 seed this year…but they’re not playing each other! How is that not a no-brainer in terms of both travel and fan interest?
I have no problems with this either. I think there should be a rule that says if you finish below .500 in your conference, you aren’t eligible for the dance.
And I think the First Four should never have happened, but it’s obviously here to stay.
Of course, they already played each other, back in November.
First of all, those four teams “playing for a 16 seed” are already “in the tournament.” I assume you mean they should be put into the round of 64.
Second, you’re the first person I have heard suggest doing it this way. Most people want it the other way around; the four teams playing for (this year) a 10 seed should all be in the 64, and the bottom eight teams - the four already there, the two remaining 16 seeds, and two of the 15 seeds - should be in the First Four. Technically, that’s the first round of the tournament (with 60 byes into the second round); in fact, the NCAA tried calling the round of 64 the “second round” in order to get the point across that there are 68 teams “in the tournament,” but too many people got confused, so it went back to calling it the first round), and there should not be a team that receives a bye while a “better” team does not.
One of the beautiful things of the 64-team tournament was that some of the ‘little guys’ always had a chance to play one of the big boys. Win your MEAC or ASUN tournament, and you get to face off against North Carolina or Duke or Kansas, teams that otherwise wouldn’t give you the time of day. Instead, Howard and Wagner had to play each other for the winner to have that opportunity. And teams like Texas and Michigan State, who couldn’t finish above .500 in their conferences, are given seeds in the Round of 64.
And, frankly, most people I hang with agree with me…get rid of the First Four. Obviously, YMMV.
You’re probably not going to like what the SEC’s commissioner thinks about the “little guys” even being in the tournament (it’s down near the bottom of the article). How much of what he thinks is “it’s better for the game” and how much is “it’s better for the SEC, as the more teams we get into the tournament, the larger our share of the TV money becomes” is up for us to decide.
The NCAA has done some things relatively recently that makes me think that it is seriously considering bringing back actual play-in games, where conferences are told, “You no longer automatically get a team into the tournament; instead, we will pair you off at the beginning of the season, and your conference champions will play each other - the winner gets in; the loser does not.” I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the NCAA stopped it after people pointed out that, the one time it was tried, neither the MEAC nor the SWAC got into the tournament.