PDA

View Full Version : NCAA decides 68-team format - Last four at-large and 4 automatic qualifiers play-in



Bluedog
07-12-2010, 03:43 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5374116

I personally like it. It's somewhat of a compromise; the last four at-large will help TV ratings and having the auto qualifiers makes scheduling the #1 seeds possible. Some interesting points:


The games will be televised on TruTv


So, this could mean that two could be considered No. 12 seeds playing for the right to play a No. 5 and two could be No. 11s vying to play a No. 6 in the second round.


"The teams selected for these games will be like teams," Guerrero said. "We felt if we were going to expand the field it would create better drama for the tournament if the First Four was much more exciting. They could all be on the 10 line or the 12 line or the 11 line. We won't know until the seeding takes place and the principles and procedures are used and the teams are slotted appropriately."

They're calling the last at-large teams, "The First Four." Strange...

Edit: This does make filling out brackets more complicated since it's possible one of the "first four" goes on to win a second round game, so I'd think most brackets would require you to choose the winners of those play-in games. So, deciding your winners might have to be done earlier in the week. Unless sites are just going to do what they do know for 16 seeds, but that is basically because 16 seeds have no chance at beating a 1 seed. An 11 seed certainly has a chance to beat a 6.

tbyers11
07-12-2010, 03:49 PM
According to this article (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news;_ylt=AtvTSkcMijY_sBuX8tkf0TrevbYF?slug=ap-ncaatournament), it appears that they have adopted a hybrid model where there will be:

2 play-in games involving teams the last 4 automatic qualifiers (essentially 65 v 68 and 66 v 67). The winners will play #1 seeds just like the previous play-in game winners

and

2 play-in games involving the last four at-large teams. These games will be seeded in the bracket so that the winner will likely play a 5 or 6 seed (since the last at-large teams are usually 11 or 12).

I think it is a fairly decent compromise. The only issue I see is that I think the 2 teams teams in the 5-6 range that get to play these "First round" winners will have an advantage over other teams on their seed line because they will be playing a team that has just played 2 nights before, has to travel and has had less time to scout.

What do y'all think?

uh_no
07-12-2010, 04:01 PM
According to this article (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news;_ylt=AtvTSkcMijY_sBuX8tkf0TrevbYF?slug=ap-ncaatournament), it appears that they have adopted a hybrid model where there will be:

2 play-in games involving teams the last 4 automatic qualifiers (essentially 65 v 68 and 66 v 67). The winners will play #1 seeds just like the previous play-in game winners

and

2 play-in games involving the last four at-large teams. These games will be seeded in the bracket so that the winner will likely play a 5 or 6 seed (since the last at-large teams are usually 11 or 12).

I think it is a fairly decent compromise. The only issue I see is that I think the 2 teams teams in the 5-6 range that get to play these "First round" winners will have an advantage over other teams on their seed line because they will be playing a team that has just played 2 nights before, has to travel and has had less time to scout.

What do y'all think?

I think its a great compromise. By the end of the year, if a team can't prepare off a 2 day break, then they don't deserve to win anyway

PumpkinFunk
07-12-2010, 04:32 PM
The only issue I see is that I think the 2 teams teams in the 5-6 range that get to play these "First round" winners will have an advantage over other teams on their seed line because they will be playing a team that has just played 2 nights before, has to travel and has had less time to scout.

You should ask the Big East coaches about this - there's a lot of complaints about how the double-bye there actually makes it harder for the higher-seeded team to win because there's been a long layoff for them whereas their opponents, who are lower-seeded, have played a real game more recently and get ready to go faster. These teams are often 10/11/12 seeds who win against 7/6/5 seeds with some regularity, so we'll have to wait and see.

tbyers11
07-12-2010, 04:40 PM
You should ask the Big East coaches about this - there's a lot of complaints about how the double-bye there actually makes it harder for the higher-seeded team to win because there's been a long layoff for them whereas their opponents, who are lower-seeded, have played a real game more recently and get ready to go faster. These teams are often 10/11/12 seeds who win against 7/6/5 seeds with some regularity, so we'll have to wait and see.

Point about the Big East double bye situation duly noted. Maybe you're right and having already played a game might get rid of some of those jitters that you see in a lot of teams the first 5 minutes or so of an NCAA game.

However, I think the situation is a little different because these first four teams will have to travel from Dayton to wherever instead of just going back to the Garden. Also, the teams that have already played a game in the opening rounds of the Big East tourney are generally playing the next game for their NCAA tourney life against a team that is usually already in the NCAA tourney and doesn't have quite the same motivation.

InSpades
07-12-2010, 04:40 PM
You should ask the Big East coaches about this - there's a lot of complaints about how the double-bye there actually makes it harder for the higher-seeded team to win because there's been a long layoff for them whereas their opponents, who are lower-seeded, have played a real game more recently and get ready to go faster. These teams are often 10/11/12 seeds who win against 7/6/5 seeds with some regularity, so we'll have to wait and see.

The big difference here is that they will not be playing in the same arena and will have to travel between games. That seems like it turns the potential advantage into maybe a slight disadvantage. The scouting is also a bigger issue since the teams may be more unfamiliar with each other (whereas everyone within a conference knows everyone pretty well I would think).

A-Tex Devil
07-12-2010, 05:11 PM
The absolute BIGGEST problem that no one is talking about. And this gets to the core, most important thing about the NCAA tournament:

We will have less than 48 hours to complete and turn in our brackets and pay our money. So now, not only is Thu and Fri shot as far as work goes, Monday might be too.

I mean -- I enter an 800 person bracket each year that still requires us to deliver money by hand. What if I can't get it in in time? I shudder at the thought.

I gotta believe the rule should be: brackets in by Tuesday before first game, money in by Thursday at 11:00 Eastern.

Bluedog
07-12-2010, 05:21 PM
The absolute BIGGEST problem that no one is talking about. And this gets to the core, most important thing about the NCAA tournament:

We will have less than 48 hours to complete and turn in our brackets and pay our money. So now, not only is Thu and Fri shot as far as work goes, Monday might be too.

I mean -- I enter an 800 person bracket each year that still requires us to deliver money by hand. What if I can't get it in in time? I shudder at the thought.

I gotta believe the rule should be: brackets in by Tuesday before first game, money in by Thursday at 11:00 Eastern.

I mentioned it in the other thread I started. But nobody seems to want to reply on that one since this one is higher on the list. :( hahaha. But I totally agree. I also have pools where you multiply the seed for first round wins, so those 2 play in games will be HUGE if keep the same point format...But probably will have to switch it.

Rich
07-12-2010, 05:23 PM
The absolute BIGGEST problem that no one is talking about. And this gets to the core, most important thing about the NCAA tournament:

We will have less than 48 hours to complete and turn in our brackets and pay our money. So now, not only is Thu and Fri shot as far as work goes, Monday might be too.

I mean -- I enter an 800 person bracket each year that still requires us to deliver money by hand. What if I can't get it in in time? I shudder at the thought.

I gotta believe the rule should be: brackets in by Tuesday before first game, money in by Thursday at 11:00 Eastern.

Not only that, but 11/12 seeds often beat 5/6 seeds and I tend to pick them based on the match-ups. How am I supposed to do that if I don't know which 11/12 team that's going to be? And how do we deal with that 11/12 early first round winner going deep into the tourney?

SCMatt33
07-12-2010, 05:34 PM
The absolute BIGGEST problem that no one is talking about. And this gets to the core, most important thing about the NCAA tournament:

We will have less than 48 hours to complete and turn in our brackets and pay our money. So now, not only is Thu and Fri shot as far as work goes, Monday might be too.

I mean -- I enter an 800 person bracket each year that still requires us to deliver money by hand. What if I can't get it in in time? I shudder at the thought.

I gotta believe the rule should be: brackets in by Tuesday before first game, money in by Thursday at 11:00 Eastern.

Yeah, I don't like that either. I love to take in as much info as possible on Monday and Tuesday and fill out my bracket Wednesday, but that goes out the window.

I may be in the minority on this one, but I think that this was more of a cop-out than a compromise. I really think that the committee should have either told the big boy's that they're just lucky to be here, or tell the little guy's that their teams are just plain bad and don't bring anything to the table. I really could have lived with either decision, though personally, I think that anything that would have gotten us closer to the "best 64 teams" playing would have been better. I don't see the need to prop up teams that can't fill a high-school gym sized arena for regular season games. By any legitimate standard, some of these teams should in no way be in the same Division as the big dogs, but they've somehow earned a bid by beating three crappy teams in a conference tourney more than the teams who have grinded out an entire season in a legit conference. I would have loved to see a tournament where the Robert Morris's of the world get their shot at a one seed. Imagine if Ohio had played Ohio State instead of Georgetown, and Murray state played a 3-seed like Baylor. I liked the idea of a stronger 64-team field.

That's not to say that I wouldn't have supported an all at-large first round either. I wrote an article that I've linked in my signature for 5-months now saying that they should have exactly that format, even before they decided on 68-teams. I think that they were just trying to come up with something that wouldn't piss too many people off and they just made it really confusing which will only drive the casual viewer away who won't want to fill out a bracket by Tuesday.

DevilHorns
07-12-2010, 07:26 PM
I think its weird when a 13/14 team has an advantage over an 11/12 since they'll have one less game in the set-up.

SoCalDukeFan
07-12-2010, 08:32 PM
Brackets bring millions of casual fans to the NCAA Tournament, so the NCAA tries to screw them up. Unbelievable.

Somehow I think we will figure out a way for this to work with the bracets.

SoCal

pfrduke
07-12-2010, 08:36 PM
The absolute BIGGEST problem that no one is talking about. And this gets to the core, most important thing about the NCAA tournament:

We will have less than 48 hours to complete and turn in our brackets and pay our money. So now, not only is Thu and Fri shot as far as work goes, Monday might be too.

I mean -- I enter an 800 person bracket each year that still requires us to deliver money by hand. What if I can't get it in in time? I shudder at the thought.

I gotta believe the rule should be: brackets in by Tuesday before first game, money in by Thursday at 11:00 Eastern.

Why not just work it like the play-in game now, and not turn in your bracket until after the Tuesday games are decided? Will people feel robbed of their bracket experience if they don't get the chance to pick a winner between two mediocre big conference teams?

A-Tex Devil
07-12-2010, 08:57 PM
Why not just work it like the play-in game now, and not turn in your bracket until after the Tuesday games are decided? Will people feel robbed of their bracket experience if they don't get the chance to pick a winner between two mediocre big conference teams?

I think it's because we all expect 16 seeds to lose. These will playin games for 10-13 seeds (the fact that isn't even hardwired is troublesome). At least 3-4 10-13 seeds win every year. But I may think Team A has a better shot at beating random 5 seed than Team B does. Whether I pick that 5 seed to win its game depends on the outcome of the play in. That's not the case for the 1-16 because no one ever picks a 16 seed.

pfrduke
07-12-2010, 09:20 PM
I think it's because we all expect 16 seeds to lose. These will playin games for 10-13 seeds (the fact that isn't even hardwired is troublesome). At least 3-4 10-13 seeds win every year. But I may think Team A has a better shot at beating random 5 seed than Team B does. Whether I pick that 5 seed to win its game depends on the outcome of the play in. That's not the case for the 1-16 because no one ever picks a 16 seed.

Well, right, but you can make that decision on Wednesday. Nothing's stopping you from filling out the rest of the bracket, and then making the decisions based on the play-in winners on Wednesday. I guess it's a slight modification on the current system, since you aren't just taking the winner of the game regardless of who it is. But I think simply ignoring the first round games for picking purposes and then making the choice once the 64-team field is set would not be a great impediment.

I'd much rather make a quick decision as to only a handful of games, rather than as to all 63 games.

A-Tex Devil
07-12-2010, 10:40 PM
Well, right, but you can make that decision on Wednesday. Nothing's stopping you from filling out the rest of the bracket, and then making the decisions based on the play-in winners on Wednesday. I guess it's a slight modification on the current system, since you aren't just taking the winner of the game regardless of who it is. But I think simply ignoring the first round games for picking purposes and then making the choice once the 64-team field is set would not be a great impediment.

I'd much rather make a quick decision as to only a handful of games, rather than as to all 63 games.

But it still gives you a 36 hour window to get your picks and money in (End of Tue night to Thurs at 11:00). :D

SoCalDukeFan
07-13-2010, 07:25 PM
For sake of argument less suppose that the last 4 selected teams are seeded 41 -44.

So then 65-68 play and we get two winners. I assume that they will be the 16 seeds in two of the regions. The 41-44 play and we get two winners, which I assume will be the 11 seeds in the other two regions. Is that right? What will we know on Selection Sunday? When will we know the Bracket for the 64 teams?

Thanks

SoCal

-jk
07-13-2010, 08:18 PM
For sake of argument less suppose that the last 4 selected teams are seeded 41 -44.

So then 65-68 play and we get two winners. I assume that they will be the 16 seeds in two of the regions. The 41-44 play and we get two winners, which I assume will be the 11 seeds in the other two regions. Is that right? What will we know on Selection Sunday? When will we know the Bracket for the 64 teams?

Thanks

SoCal

I think the NCAA's goal is to get us to accept another round, so that we just lose focus on the 64 team bracket. They will add more and more teams over the next few seasons until it's a 96 team tourney.

-jk

4decadedukie
07-14-2010, 06:51 AM
There is a major, practical problem with this approach. The NCAA will continue to announce its seedings and brackets -- including the new First Four -- late on Selection Sunday. This, presuming the play-in games occur on Tuesday, creates an approximate forty-eight hour deadline to accomplish for ALL the LOGISTICAL and ADMINISTRATIVE actions required to support these play-in games. This includes (but is certainly not limited to): travel arrangements (team, media, fans, university officials, alumni, etc.), television (and aggregate press) coverage, ticket sales and distribution, local transportation and parking, arena preparation and catering, venue supplementary employment (everything from security, to stadium ushers and food/memorabilia sales-people, to parking lot attendants, and to additional hotel personnel), city temporary event support (police, fire, EMS, public transportation, modifications to local parking and traffic rules, etc.), and so forth. Real success is almost always based on intensive management of the "details," and the NCAA's two-day schedule constraint leaves VERY little time to accomplish and to integrate such things with excellence.

CEF1959
07-14-2010, 09:33 AM
There was nothing wrong with the 64 team tourney, except all the whining from teams that didn't do well enough to get off the bubble and didn't make it as a result.

This won't stop the whining, but it will mean more money for everyone, including all the coaches who get paid for making the NCAA field. And money is what matters. It won't make for a better tournament, though, just a bigger tournament. I guess we're headed for a 256 team field eventually. And why not? Why disappoint any team if there is money to be made in extending the principle of inclusiveness? And it would at least shut up Doug Gottlieb and Dick Vitale from screaming about some selection outrage or another.

Nugget
07-14-2010, 01:36 PM
I don't hate the NCAA's expansion or how they've done it nearly as much as I thought I would. Yes, a 64 team tournament was perfect as is, better, and easier to understand. But, the 68 teamer is far superior to 96.

Effectively, the only real change is that one more small school will go home early without getting to play in the "real" tournament on Thurs/Friday.

I cry no tears for the last 4 at-large teams in the field that will be in the new play in -- 3 of those 4 would have been out under the old system, and the one that made it in all honesty is more luck than anything else (for example, last year's "last team in" was either UTEP or Utah St., and the first three out were probably Illinois, Miss. St. and Va Tech; is it so obvious which of those gets "punsished" by being in the play-in game and which is benefitted by being in the play-in game instead of not being in the tourney at all?)

Nor am I moved by the gripe that it is not "fair" to these final 4 at-large teams that they have to travel to Dayton to play Tues or Wed and then travel to play somewhere else on Thurs or Fri. Their alternative is a 75% chance of being left out completely! And, there is a not-crazy argument that having played and won a game in the tournament might help them in the next round notwithstanding the extra travel (see the Big East's "double bye" results this year, or the history in the early 80s, when there were 48 or 53 teams in the tournament of high seeds who got byes losing their initial games, in the "second round," to lower seeds). So, to me, the travel/fairness issue of playing more games is a wash.

The logistics are no real issue either – the NCAA has done fine with the games in Dayton, and it won’t be much harder to coordinate travel for 8 teams than 2. Personally, I'd favor having one doubleheader in Dayton, and another in “historic” college hoops locations that have fans as good as Dayton’s but are closer to major airports to make the travel even easier, like the Palestra in Philly, Hinkle in Indy or Municipal Auditorium in Kansas City.
While the compromise approach taken by the NCAA makes it harder to do a bracket, I (and I suspect many others) would have been very likely to continue not watching any of the "opening round" games if they were all between, in effect, the 16 and 17 seeds. At least this way the early round games are likely to be more interesting and watchable.

And I am reluctantly convinced that having all 4 of the play-in games be between the last 8 at-large teams might mess with the bracket too much. While the last 1 at-large team (under the old system) and the first 3 out would be clustered around the 12 seed line in most years, extending that to the last 5 at-large teams under the old system definitely would get down to the 11 or even 10 seed line.

So, to answer SoCal Duke Fan’s questions, I don’t see the differences in the new and old brackets as being that significant. Taking last year as an example, here’s what the bracket looked like, with UTEP and Utah St. the lowest seeded at large teams (I’m assuming Utah St. was the last team in):

12 UTEP (#45 on s-curve), Utah St. (#46), Cornell, New Mexico St.
13 Houston, Murray St., Siena, Wofford
14 Ohio U, Oakland, Sam Houston, Montana
15 UCSB, North Texas, Robert Morris, Morgan St.
16 Lehigh, Vermont, ETSU, Ark PB vs. Radford
Last 3 out: Illinois, Miss St., Va Tech

The new system would have Utah St. play-off with team #47 on the S-curve (I assume it would have been Illinois) for the #12 seed.

My guess is that New Mexico St. would probably have been ranked on the S-curve below the final 2 at-large teams added to the field, Miss St. and Va. Tech. If so, then they would play in for a #12 seed also, and New Mexico St. would move down to a 13 seed in the new system. Otherwise, you’d flip those and Miss St./Va Tech would be playing-in for a 13 seed.

And, 1 of the automatic qualifiers from each of the 13-15 seeds under the old system would be pushed down 1 line, so that there would end up being 1 extra team as a 16 seed for the play-in games.

So, you'd have gotten a bracket like this:
12 Cornell, UTEP, Utah St. vs. Illinois, [N. Mex. St., or Miss St. vs. Va Tech]
13 Houston, Murray St., Siena, [N. Mex. St., or Miss St. vs. Va Tech]
14 Ohio U, Sam Houston, Oakland, Wofford
15 UCSB, North Texas, Robert Morris, Montana
16 Morg. St., Vermont, Lehigh vs. Radford (66-67), ETSU vs. Ark PB (65-68)

tommy
07-14-2010, 02:16 PM
xWhy disappoint any team if there is money to be made in extending the principle of inclusiveness?

Because it's a national championship tournament. Teams should have to earn the right to compete in it by their excellence on the court, not by just showing up.


And it would at least shut up Doug Gottlieb and Dick Vitale from screaming about some selection outrage or another.

It would? Don't you think they'll just continue to scream, except now it'll be about who got left out of the final 4 at-large spots?

TNDukeFan
07-14-2010, 02:39 PM
So they must be doing something right.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog/_/name/katz_andy/id/5374366/greenberg-skeptical-new-ncaa-format

SoCalDukeFan
07-14-2010, 04:45 PM
The NCAA loves to talk about student athletes and how so many of them go on to career outside sports.

Players now miss almost all of a week playing in their conference tournament.

Then the last 4 in get to fly to Dayton or someplace. The two winners fly to someplace else for week end games. A week totally shot.

If they keep winning, its more travel, more games, and more missed school.

While it was possible that a team from the old format could have to play 7 games, it was realistically not going to happen. The play in winners all lost their next game. However it is much more likely that one of the last 4 win will win a few games, maybe get to the Final Four.

Bring back the 64 team tournament.

SoCal

ACCBBallFan
07-15-2010, 01:12 AM
There was nothing wrong with the 64 team tourney, except all the whining from teams that didn't do well enough to get off the bubble and didn't make it as a result.

That's why I would have preferred the last four in play the former last four out to settle the bickering on the court.

Besides the logistcis issue getting teams to Dayton or wherever from time they find out Sunday night to be game ready for Tuesday, another logistics challenge for the committee is avoiding having teams from same conference playing one another before the sweet 16. Until mega conferences are in place, I guess the most likely conference to be affected is 16 team Big East teams 8-9-10, since 1-7 already have to be spread around to avoid facing one another too early.

gep
07-15-2010, 01:30 AM
Because it's a national championship tournament. Teams should have to earn the right to compete in it by their excellence on the court, not by just showing up.

I totally agree... which is why I still say that conference champions, regardless of how each conference declares their champion, or how big or how small, should have an automatic bid to participate *without* a first-round (play-in) game. Those BCS teams that were on the bubble... well, as they say... "prove it" first...

Sure... those "very" small conferences will probably not make it past 1 or 2 games... but they earned the *recognition* to be "there"...

Kedsy
07-15-2010, 09:50 AM
I totally agree... which is why I still say that conference champions, regardless of how each conference declares their champion, or how big or how small, should have an automatic bid to participate *without* a first-round (play-in) game. Those BCS teams that were on the bubble... well, as they say... "prove it" first...

Sure... those "very" small conferences will probably not make it past 1 or 2 games... but they earned the *recognition* to be "there"...

Think of it this way: it's not a play-in anymore, it's a small first round. All 68 teams are "there." Just like when they went from 32 to 48 -- some teams got a bye, but all 48 teams "made" the tournament. I expect this is just the first step and we'll soon be moving to 72 or 76, with an 8 game (16 teams) first round.

sagegrouse
07-15-2010, 10:14 AM
Think of it this way: it's not a play-in anymore, it's a small first round. All 68 teams are "there." Just like when they went from 32 to 48 -- some teams got a bye, but all 48 teams "made" the tournament. I expect this is just the first step and we'll soon be moving to 72 or 76, with an 8 game (16 teams) first round.

Well, I expect that the use of the term "First Round" games signals that we are headed inexorably to a 96-team tournament.

sagegrouse
'I don't know what "inexorably" means, but I like to drop it into conversations every now and then'

gep
07-15-2010, 12:28 PM
Think of it this way: it's not a play-in anymore, it's a small first round. All 68 teams are "there." Just like when they went from 32 to 48 -- some teams got a bye, but all 48 teams "made" the tournament. I expect this is just the first step and we'll soon be moving to 72 or 76, with an 8 game (16 teams) first round.

I see your point. And, as time moves on, I guess I can see all 68 (or 72, 76, or even 96) teams just seeded top to bottom, regardless of conference. I guess I'm still stuck on the "64-team tournament". :)

Kedsy
07-15-2010, 12:36 PM
I guess I'm still stuck on the "64-team tournament". :)

Aren't we all? This has the golden goose written all over it.

Nugget
07-15-2010, 12:48 PM
Why the negativity on assuming this expansion is just a short stop on the way to 72 or 96 teams?

The just-signed contract with Turner and CBS runs for something like 12 years, is based on a 68 team tournament, and pays the NCAA a fortune.

The NCAA doesn't get any more money under the contract if they expand the tournament further. So, why would they do that, and face all the criticism but without any additional money?

The NCAA would have to either cut the contract short or, at the very least, take advantage of some option (which I don't recall seeing reported, though it obviously might exist) to terminate/re-open the contract early. But doing either of those would be very risky, as the NCAA couldn't be sure to get much more in rights fees simply by adding dilutive product of more early round games on the first Tuesday/Wed. night. They would have to be certain that Turner or ESPN would be willing to pay a boatload, because CBS sure would not be willing to pay any more -- they were losing their shirt as is, and have shifted much of the cost of the new contract to Turner, even being willing to give up Final Fours in the out-years of the recently-signed contract in order to cut costs.

sagegrouse
07-15-2010, 01:06 PM
Why the negativity on assuming this expansion is just a short stop on the way to 72 or 96 teams?

The just-signed contract with Turner and CBS runs for something like 12 years, is based on a 68 team tournament, and pays the NCAA a fortune.

The NCAA doesn't get any more money under the contract if they expand the tournament further. So, why would they do that, and face all the criticism but without any additional money?



The request for proposal, I seem to remember, asked for bidders to consider tournament sizes up to 96 teams. Maybe I am off base, but I don't assume that the contract is so simple that the fees are same regardless of the size of the tournament. I would expect there to be all sorts of contingencies covered that would enable the NCAA and the CBS team to share in the benefits of a larger tournament.

OTOH I haven't seen the documents.

sagegrouse

JasonEvans
07-15-2010, 04:56 PM
It may seem minor, but one impact of this is that the #1 seeds are going to face a tough opponent in their first games. This is going to mean that one team that was a #15 seed against the #2 seeds will now be on the #16 line to play a #1.

No #16 has ever beaten a #1, but there have been several #2s to fall to #15s. Each time we expand the tournament (first to 65 and now to 68) and expand the number of "play-in" games, we nudge up the quality of the teams forced to play the #1 seeds in the first round.

Mark my words -- someday a #1 seed will lose an opening round game... and we will look back on these moves as something that made the #16 seeds just a little bit better.

--Jason "of course, I could be wrong ;) " Evans