Be it resolved, with respect to naming conventions

[throatybeard]

Be it resolved, with respect to naming conventions, that we the people, invested with actual brains, throw off the shackles imposed by the want-wits in the NCAA, and continue to refer to the round of 64 as "the first round" and the round of 32 as "the second round."

Recent ridiculous perversions aside, it's still basically a 2^6 tournament. It's beyond stupid, when comparing a school's performance, to call the same second round faceplant "second round" in 2008 and "third round" in 2012. Thus:

"preliminary games" or "play-in games"
1R
2R
Region Semifinal
Region Final
National Semifinal
Championship

Who's with me? Calling the round of 32 "third round" is beyond asinine, even if it is actually technically the third round, at present.

Here's an idea. Let's start calling the national semifinal game between UK and Texas Western in 1966 the "third round." Not. Because that would be stupid.

[anon]

Thank you!

[uh_no]

Be it resolved, with respect to naming conventions, that we the people, invested with actual brains, throw off the shackles imposed by the want-wits in the NCAA, and continue to refer to the round of 64 as "the first round" and the round of 32 as "the second round."

Recent ridiculous perversions aside, it's still basically a 2^6 tournament. It's beyond stupid, when comparing a school's performance, to call the same second round faceplant "second round" in 2008 and "third round" in 2012. Thus:

"preliminary games" or "play-in games"
1R
2R
Region Semifinal
Region Final
National Semifinal
Championship

Who's with me? Calling the round of 32 "third round" is beyond asinine, even if it is actually technically the third round, at present.

Here's an idea. Let's start calling the national semifinal game between UK and Texas Western in 1966 the "third round." Not. Because that would be stupid.

I'd vote yes, but there's no poll!

anyway, AYE!

[Newton_14]

Be it resolved, with respect to naming conventions, that we the people, invested with actual brains, throw off the shackles imposed by the want-wits in the NCAA, and continue to refer to the round of 64 as "the first round" and the round of 32 as "the second round."

Recent ridiculous perversions aside, it's still basically a 2^6 tournament. It's beyond stupid, when comparing a school's performance, to call the same second round faceplant "second round" in 2008 and "third round" in 2012. Thus:

"preliminary games" or "play-in games"
1R
2R
Region Semifinal
Region Final
National Semifinal
Championship

Who's with me? Calling the round of 32 "third round" is beyond asinine, even if it is actually technically the third round, at present.

Here's an idea. Let's start calling the national semifinal game between UK and Texas Western in 1966 the "third round." Not. Because that would be stupid.

I join you in this coalition to ban asinine naming conventions brought on by the need to make all participants feel equal, when in fact they are not. The tourney starts on Thursday, with 64 teams. The glorified Les Robinson 4 game play-in's be damned.

In following Robert's Rules of Order, I 2nd Throaty's motion. Is there any discussion before a show of hands from the congregation?

[hurleyfor3]

I just call them R64 and R32 to remove all doubt. The problem with (still) calling R64 the "first round" is you confuse people who call it the second round.

But I do insist on still calling the tuesday/wednesday games the play-in games.

[sporthenry]

Can we go back to 64 while we are at it? The extra 4 is a joke. Sure VCU wouldn't have made it but they still didn't win it all. We are arguing about the 31st or 32nd best at large teams when in football we still accept only two teams getting a shot. I just look at it as we need to complain about something regardless of issue. That said, how am I supposed to fill out a bracket when I won't know who wins the 12 play-in game til 11:30 at night?

[Delaware]

Assume some of you may have heard Bilas with that tounge in cheek classic tonight.

Yes, the "first round" is a joke.

[Exiled_Devil]

Jay Bilas tonight:

"The first round...sorry, second round. I forgot that 60 teams get a first round bye."

[UrinalCake]

Imagine if you were starting from scratch - the tournament didn't exist and you were sitting in a room with a bunch of other people to discuss how to determine the best team in college basketball. Everyone starts tossing out ideas. And you propose our current system. "Let's see, we'll have six rounds of teams playing each other, but before playing those six rounds we'll have a round of four games in which the last automatic bids and the last at-large teams play each other. We don't know what the at-large winners will be seeded, that will vary from year to year. Everyone will split into four geographic regions, except no one will actually play in those regions for the first weekend. Or the last weekend. Only the most die-hard fans will be able to understand any of this. Everyone will spend at least an hour trying to explain this system to their wives every year, only to give up."

You'd be laughed out of the room.

[gus]

Can we go back to 64 while we are at it? The extra 4 is a joke. Sure VCU wouldn't have made it but they still didn't win it all. We are arguing about the 31st or 32nd best at large teams when in football we still accept only two teams getting a shot. I just look at it as we need to complain about something regardless of issue. That said, how am I supposed to fill out a bracket when I won't know who wins the 12 play-in game til 11:30 at night?

All the brackets I've ever entered in the 64+ team era don't require you to pick the play in games, but now that one of them will be a 12 seed (right?) it does seem like a possibility.

[Matches]

Co-sign. Seth Davis said something about a "second-round matchup" last night and I was lost for the next minute. "How does he know what the 2nd-round matchups are? His predictions are ALWAYS wrong."

"Round of 64" seems like a fair compromise. A pox on the "First Four". Aside from the naming silliness, it deprives four conference champions of *really* being in the tourney.

[Reilly]

...

But I do insist on still calling the tuesday/wednesday games the play-in games.

Those teams are "in". How about calling them "the Dayton games" and then moving on to calling games "the round of 64, the round of 32 ..."

We have perfectly good descriptors: Dayton, 64, 32, 16 ... that focus the mind and avoid confusion.

But then folks try to add a layer of adjectives: opening, first, second ... that causes headaches.

[hurleyfor3]

There's no guarantee they'll always be in Dayton. Why the hell are they in Dayton, anyway? If it's location, it can still be rotated around several other good choices. And why aren't they played all on Tuesday? Wouldn't that help with the winners getting more rest?

It's hard for me to think of the real tournament starting on any day other than Thursday. So the Dayton teams are still playing into the 64-team tournament.

[MulletMan]

There's no guarantee they'll always be in Dayton. Why the hell are they in Dayton, anyway? If it's location, it can still be rotated around several other good choices. And why aren't they played all on Tuesday? Wouldn't that help with the winners getting more rest?

It's hard for me to think of the real tournament starting on any day other than Thursday. So the Dayton teams are still playing into the 64-team tournament.

Those games are at UD arena for a couple of reasons. 1 is that it is reasonable central in geographic location so teams can get in and get moved on to their first round sites. 2 is that UD Arena is perfect for early round NCAA tourney games in size and accessibility. 3 is that the fans in the area will actually come out for the games. 4 is that there are several hotels centrally located that aren't ever filled unless its Parents' weekend at UD.

So, due to the completely unpredictable nature of who plays in these games, and where they'll need to go next, Dayton ends up getting them. Only drawback for Dayton is that they now aren't in the rotation for first or second round... but I suppose that's offset by getting games every year instead of every other or every third year.

[UrinalCake]

When we had 65 teams, I think it was fair to call the first game a play-in game, but under the current format the last four at-large teams are NOT among the worst teams in the field. Hence the 12 and 14 seeds. So i don't think it's fair to say they have to play their way into the tournament while there are several automatic bid teams that are much worse than them but don't play until the round of 64.

[sporthenry]

All the brackets I've ever entered in the 64+ team era don't require you to pick the play in games, but now that one of them will be a 12 seed (right?) it does seem like a possibility.

No, I doubt many will ever have you fill in the play in game but my point is that last year VCU went to the F4 and while I think they played on Tuesday, what if you think Cal can beat Temple but Florida can't. I go to bed and have to fill out my bracket in the wee hours and then get it to where it needs to be.

[weezie]

Those games are at UD arena for a couple of reasons. 1 is that it is reasonable central in geographic location so teams can get in and get moved on to their first round sites. 2 is that UD Arena is perfect for early round NCAA tourney games in size and accessibility. 3 is that the fans in the area will actually come out for the games. 4 is that there are several hotels centrally located...

It probably won't stay that way forever anyway. Surely some other mid-sized town will start clamoring for the event. They showed a big hoopdedoo festival on the streets around the arena on tv yesterday. where's there's money to be made, someone will make a run for it.

[UrinalCake]

...what if you think Cal can beat Temple but Florida can't. I go to bed and have to fill out my bracket in the wee hours and then get it to where it needs to be.

That's a good point, as a 5/12 upset is a legitimate possibility. They should at least have the two games between the at-large teams played on tuesday and the 16 seeds play on wednesday. No one will ever pick a #16 upset, and this would give everyone an extra day to contemplate their brackets. Not sure how this fits in with the S-curve though.

[1 24 90]

Those games are at UD arena for a couple of reasons. 1 is that it is reasonable central in geographic location so teams can get in and get moved on to their first round sites. 2 is that UD Arena is perfect for early round NCAA tourney games in size and accessibility. 3 is that the fans in the area will actually come out for the games. 4 is that there are several hotels centrally located that aren't ever filled unless its Parents' weekend at UD.

So, due to the completely unpredictable nature of who plays in these games, and where they'll need to go next, Dayton ends up getting them. Only drawback for Dayton is that they now aren't in the rotation for first or second round... but I suppose that's offset by getting games every year instead of every other or every third year.

Dayton actually gets 2nd and 3rd round games in addition to the play in games next year and no games in North Carolina for the first time in forever. Maybe they'll send Duke to Lexington again.

Future Dates / Sites

2013

First Round: Mar 19-20

UD Arena
Dayton, Ohio

Second/Third Rounds: Mar 21-24, 2013

Energy Solutions Arena
Salt Lake City, Utah

Frank Erwin Center
Austin Texas

HP Pavilion
San Jose, California

Palace of Auburn Hills
Auburn Hills, Michigan

Rupp Arena
Lexington, Kentucky

Sprint Center
Kansas City, Missouri

UD Arena
Dayton, Ohio

Wachovia Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

[camion]

The current naming system does have some advantages.

UCLA under John Wooden never made it past the fifth round of the tournament.

Duke under K has made it past the firth round 9 times.