Originally Posted by
Neals384
Winners
Number 1 seeds (and other high seeds), who will still play a small conference champion in the first round, not a major conference team like they could in a 96 team field.
Losers
Small conferences (assuming the 4 play-in games are champions of 8 small conferences).
Rabbit ears viewers, who won't get to see the chamionship game in 2016.
ESPN
UNC, who might have made the 2011 tourney in a 96 team field.
Odd enough, this isn't quite correct:
See those smaller conferences, yes they'll need to win the play in game to get into the 64 team field...
BUT, and this is KEY, the money a small conference gets from a team winning a play-in game is the SAME as if they won any other game.
So the small conferences that WIN their play-in games get money as if they won the first round...which is a big deal to those conferences (its like 250K split between the members...a nice extra bit of revenue for smaller funded bball programs).
So yeah, from a fundamentalist point of view, the smallest conferences are getting jobbed. But less so than you'd think.
------------------
Of note: this does make 16 seeds probably BETTER and more likely to beat 15s, as the play-in games will probably be between the 4 would-be 16s and 4 would-be 15s, meaning a #1 seed is essentially going to be playing a 15 seed most of the time.
<devildeac> anyone playing drinking games by now?
7:49:36<Wander> drink every qb run?
7:49:38<loran16> umm, drink every time asack rushes?
7:49:38<wolfybeard> @devildeac: drink when Asack runs a keeper
7:49:39 PM<CB&B> any time zack runs, drink
Carolina Delenda Est