PDA

View Full Version : The First Four



Channing
03-16-2011, 11:39 PM
now that the "first four" is (just about) done, a couple thoughts:

(1) What a waste of time.
(2) The fact that these games are on "TruTV" shows just how much interest there is.
(3) Why are these games played in Dayton? Case and point - CU v. UAB. Two Southern schools with Southern fan bases. Why play in Dayton and force the winner to get on a ridiculously late flight to Tampa for such a quick turn around? Why not just play somewhere closer to both schools, or in Tampa?
(4) 68 teams was supposed to help alleviate some of the bubble whining - this was the worst year in recent memory for bubble whining.
(5) Thank goodness the tournament didnt expand to 96(?) teams, or whatever they were contemplating.

ChrisP
03-16-2011, 11:52 PM
Yeah, kind of a waste of time - that first game was about the only one that was very interesting.

On another note, what is UP with USC? I have never seen a team NOT try to foul and extend the game. And then, when they got the ball back with like 20 seconds to go, their guards were content to just dribble out the clock (as if they were the ones who were winning). Odd. They just...gave up.

That's ok, I knew USC would fold like a house of cards. Hey, west coast, when you get a decent team, give me a call. Jeez. For all the talk about VCU not belonging in this tourney, they sure took it to the Trojans. The Rams actually looked pretty good to me. I wish them luck against the Hoyas.

rthomas
03-16-2011, 11:54 PM
How much longer does it take? The longest freaking week of the year. Always, without fail. I needs some basketball. Since November, we are on more than American Idol, and now nothing till Friday.

I can not deal.

basket1544
03-17-2011, 12:07 AM
I've been getting through the week by visiting vault.ncaa.com and watching some wonderful past games. There's a certain Duke Michigan game on the site that seems even better now.

burnspbesq
03-17-2011, 12:08 AM
Hey, west coast, when you get a decent team, give me a call.

Your ignorance is showing. Have you not seen San Diego State this year?

phaedrus
03-17-2011, 12:09 AM
How much longer does it take? The longest freaking week of the year. Always, without fail. I needs some basketball. Since November, we are on more than American Idol, and now nothing till Friday.

I can not deal.

What, UTSA-Alabama State doesn't do it for you? Snob.

YourLandlord
03-17-2011, 12:09 AM
Your ignorance is showing. Have you not seen San Diego State this year?
Has anyone?

uh_no
03-17-2011, 12:16 AM
Your ignorance is showing. Have you not seen San Diego State this year?

biggest win is over BYU who's biggest win is over SDSU!!! early exits coming up for both teams!

juise
03-17-2011, 01:29 AM
biggest win is over BYU who's biggest win is over SDSU!!! early exits coming up for both teams!

Says the UConn fan. Any motive there?
(For the record, I have UConn winning that game, as much as it pains me.)

Jim3k
03-17-2011, 02:27 AM
Yeah, kind of a waste of time - that first game was about the only one that was very interesting.

On another note, what is UP with USC? I have never seen a team NOT try to foul and extend the game. And then, when they got the ball back with like 20 seconds to go, their guards were content to just dribble out the clock (as if they were the ones who were winning). Odd. They just...gave up.

That's ok, I knew USC would fold like a house of cards. Hey, west coast, when you get a decent team, give me a call. Jeez. For all the talk about VCU not belonging in this tourney, they sure took it to the Trojans. The Rams actually looked pretty good to me. I wish them luck against the Hoyas.

Well, at that point, with about a minute to go, the game was essentially over. O'Neill knew it and also knew that if he continued to play, the margin would be greater than the 15 points it had reached. Why make it look worse?

As for West Coast teams, I think a little care needs to be taken with the comments. I love me some ACC and have for 50 years. But the league is down right now. So is the Pac-10. In any event, as Burns has mentioned, SDSU has done very well; indeed, it has attracted Pomeroy's attention. They may go down early; they may not. They do have talent. Sneering at them while also ignoring Arizona and Washington is downright silly. In fact, all including UCLA, have favored seeds for the first round. You haven't seen them due to time zone constraints. Doesn't mean they're not pretty good. Same can be said for Clemson, Florida State or North Carolina, though as a group two are not favored seeds. Again, they may go down early or they may not. It does an ACCer no credit to complain about the weakness of the Pac-10 given the ACC's similar status. I suggest we let the games be played without the attitude.

Personally, I'd like to see all the ACC teams win for a while (well, except one, GTHC). Being a fan is one thing, but being realistic is another.

wilson
03-17-2011, 10:00 AM
(2) The fact that these games are on "TruTV" shows just how much interest there is. These games being aired on Tru TV has nothing whatsoever to do with fan interest. Rather, it's a result of television execs' choices for this year's contract, and their desire to get that network vastly more exposure through this event. How many people had never heard of that channel until this week? And how many people have had it magically appear in their channel lineup within the past few days?
That said, the public certainly will regard these games generally as duds. However, I didn't think they were totally horrible. The UNC-Asheville-Arkansas/Little Rock game was quite entertaining, and I also enjoyed seeing Clemson turn in a very solid performance.

ChrisP
03-17-2011, 10:43 AM
Well, at that point, with about a minute to go, the game was essentially over. O'Neill knew it and also knew that if he continued to play, the margin would be greater than the 15 points it had reached. Why make it look worse?

As for West Coast teams, I think a little care needs to be taken with the comments. I love me some ACC and have for 50 years. But the league is down right now. So is the Pac-10. In any event, as Burns has mentioned, SDSU has done very well; indeed, it has attracted Pomeroy's attention. They may go down early; they may not. They do have talent. Sneering at them while also ignoring Arizona and Washington is downright silly. In fact, all including UCLA, have favored seeds for the first round. You haven't seen them due to time zone constraints. Doesn't mean they're not pretty good. Same can be said for Clemson, Florida State or North Carolina, though as a group two are not favored seeds. Again, they may go down early or they may not. It does an ACCer no credit to complain about the weakness of the Pac-10 given the ACC's similar status. I suggest we let the games be played without the attitude.

Personally, I'd like to see all the ACC teams win for a while (well, except one, GTHC). Being a fan is one thing, but being realistic is another.

All I'm saying is that when it comes to tourney time (NCAA variety, that is) you hardly ever see a west coast team make much noise. Since 1990, teams that might be considered "west coast" have made it to the FF 11 times. That's 13% of the FF teams, folks. And, for the purpose of that example, I'm including teams like UNLV and Utah. Let's face it, teams NOT named UCLA or Arizona have really not done very well at ALL in the "big dance". I'm just not a believer in West Coast teams. I think they're kinda soft.

Yeah, I said it. I'll believe in SDSU when they, you know, actually beat a good team.

davekay1971
03-17-2011, 11:19 AM
Says the UConn fan. Any motive there?
(For the record, I have UConn winning that game, as much as it pains me.)

I have UConn winning, too, only because I want the pleasure of watching Nolan erase Kemba Walker's name from any serious conversation regarding NPOY.

CLW
03-17-2011, 11:28 AM
A COMPLETE waste of time. I really feel bad for those 16 seed teams. They EARNED the right to play in the tourny (by winning their conference) and yet noone considers them in unless they win that play-in/1st Round game.

IMHO, if the NCAA is going to do the First 4, it should be the last 8 at-large teams fighting for the spot.

#1 More people are likely to tune in

#2 It doesn't punish the small schools that have earned the right to play in the tourny.

DallasDevil
03-17-2011, 11:39 AM
All I'm saying is that when it comes to tourney time (NCAA variety, that is) you hardly ever see a west coast team make much noise. Since 1990, teams that might be considered "west coast" have made it to the FF 11 times. That's 13% of the FF teams, folks. And, for the purpose of that example, I'm including teams like UNLV and Utah. Let's face it, teams NOT named UCLA or Arizona have really not done very well at ALL in the "big dance". I'm just not a believer in West Coast teams. I think they're kinda soft.

Yeah, I said it. I'll believe in SDSU when they, you know, actually beat a good team.

It's interesting to note that about 13% of the teams in the power 6 conferences are located in the west. So, on average, it seems like they make the final four an appropriate amount of the time. Perhaps it's not that west coast teams are worse, just that there are not as many of them.

Bostondevil
03-17-2011, 11:43 AM
I respectfully beg to differ. I think it's great that a couple of 16 seeds got a chance to actually win an NCAA tournament game.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-17-2011, 11:48 AM
These "early rounds" are indeed ridiculous. Living in Asheville, I watched the first "First Four" game with great interest. I just held my breath and hoped for those poor kids that they would advance.

These automatic bids from small conferences have earned the right to be on the big stage. It's a farce to pretend that these games are the new "first round."

Are you telling me that there's no difference between earning a game against another 16 seed on TruTV on Tuesday night in front of 500 people in Dayton, Ohio and a nationally televised CBS game against #1 seed Pitt on Thursday afternoon?

If you want to have play-in games, fine. Restrict it to the border-line at large teams. Call it the Virginia Tech invitational (if they can get selected). I think this might be fun, in fact. Take the bottom 8 picks and put them head to head to make it to the "real" tourney.

I truly feel terrible for the teams that lose these early games. For those that win and hop on a jet and head to the next tourney game... congratulations. I hope you aren't emotionally and physically too tired to put up a good fight against an overwhelming opponent.

I guess I'm turning into an old fogey, as I long for my 8 team ACC and my 64 team NCAA. I'll try to learn to love it I suppose, but these automatic bid 16 seeds eliminating each other doesn't seem to reflect the spirit of competition that I enjoy about the tournament.

The NCAA tournament is by far my favorite sporting event. It seems so unnecessary to "improve" it with these additional games on obscure networks.

El_Diablo
03-17-2011, 12:02 PM
(3) Why are these games played in Dayton? Case and point - CU v. UAB. Two Southern schools with Southern fan bases. Why play in Dayton and force the winner to get on a ridiculously late flight to Tampa for such a quick turn around? Why not just play somewhere closer to both schools, or in Tampa?

I think it makes sense if you think about it from a scheduling perspective. They can't rush to find an open venue Sunday evening once the brackets come out, so they have to schedule it all in advance, and at least they picked a place that was somewhat centrally-located. They could have picked something in the south, but then what happens if the last ones in were USC and Colorado? Same problem.

You could say that each respective pod can host the play-in game where the winner is playing next, and schedule that in advance, but I'm sure they wanted to package the games together in order to have a chance of selling tickets, rather than spreading the four games around to the different pods (which may or may not have better geographic proximity to the schools than Dayton). Most of these venues for the first weekend are undersold already...there would be much worse attendance on a Tuesday or Wednesday night to watch one crappy game.

As for the quick turnaround...it's a slight disadvantage, but that's the price you have to pay for being the last ones in!

Scorp4me
03-17-2011, 12:08 PM
These automatic bids from small conferences have earned the right to be on the big stage. It's a farce to pretend that these games are the new "first round."

I couldn't agree more. The official reps of each conference (in almost every case the tourney winner) should be a guaranteed member of the field of 64. What frustrates me most is it seems almost everyone agrees with this. Yet the selection committee ignores it.

Not to mention I don't understand how 2 of the play in games were 16 seeds, but the other two were for 11 and 12 seeds. Strange.

El_Diablo
03-17-2011, 12:09 PM
But yes, I strongly agree that the "First Four" should feature the bottom eight at-large bids (a) to make it more appealing to watch, and (b) to reward the teams that won their conferences by giving them a "bye" to face the #1 or #2 seed.

jacone21
03-17-2011, 01:05 PM
...

Yeah, I said it. I'll believe in SDSU when they, you know, actually beat a good team.

And that's the beauty of the tournament. They're going to get a chance to prove themselves on the court.

SoCalDukeFan
03-17-2011, 07:11 PM
now that the "first four" is (just about) done, a couple thoughts:

(1) What a waste of time.
(2) The fact that these games are on "TruTV" shows just how much interest there is.
(3) Why are these games played in Dayton? Case and point - CU v. UAB. Two Southern schools with Southern fan bases. Why play in Dayton and force the winner to get on a ridiculously late flight to Tampa for such a quick turn around? Why not just play somewhere closer to both schools, or in Tampa?
(4) 68 teams was supposed to help alleviate some of the bubble whining - this was the worst year in recent memory for bubble whining.
(5) Thank goodness the tournament didnt expand to 96(?) teams, or whatever they were contemplating.

It does not mean much that they were on TruTV and Dayton is okay with me.

But the whole idea was stupid and was shown to be a total waste they year. 3 teams that did not deserve it got in. Maybe VCU will win some games but they, like USC and UAB, did not deserve to get in.

Go back to 65 teams and the one play in. If another conference splits in two, go to 66. But this set up is just stupid.

It is easy to figure out what the NCAA will do in almost any situation. Determine what makes sense and then you know they will do the opposite.

I think that the reason for the 68 teams was so 3 more coaches could say they make the tournament.

SoCal

DukeDude
03-17-2011, 09:07 PM
Why did poor Clemson have to play in the 2nd and 5th games of a 68 team tourney? This first round needs some tweaking.

ChrisP
03-17-2011, 09:11 PM
Agreed that Clemson (and really, all the "First Four" winners) got a raw deal. I'm sorry, but if the NCAA is going to make a team play in that stupid first four deal, then how about playing ALL 4 games on Tuesday and then setting it up so that the winners don't play again until Friday? How hard would that be?

Newton_14
03-17-2011, 09:11 PM
Why did poor Clemson have to play in the 2nd and 5th games of a 68 team tourney? This first round needs some tweaking.

Indeed it does. I mentioned this in the East thread. The committee hosed Clemson with the schedule. Finish in Dayton at midnight on Tuesday, then fly to Tampa for a noon game on Thursday. Stupid. Play the Tuesday game in Tampa, and play the last game on Thursday rather than the first.

94duke
03-17-2011, 09:24 PM
Indeed it does. I mentioned this in the East thread. The committee hosed Clemson with the schedule. Finish in Dayton at midnight on Tuesday, then fly to Tampa for a noon game on Thursday. Stupid. Play the Tuesday game in Tampa, and play the last game on Thursday rather than the first.

My opinion, they should leave the Tue/Wed as it is, but the location should be the same as the second round site. You play on Tue/Wed, you win, you get a day of rest, then you play on Thu/Fri. There is no extra travel.

Newton_14
03-17-2011, 09:44 PM
My opinion, they should leave the Tue/Wed as it is, but the location should be the same as the second round site. You play on Tue/Wed, you win, you get a day of rest, then you play on Thu/Fri. There is no extra travel.

Yes, sorry, that is what I meant I just stated it poorly.
To top it off, Clemson should not have been in the play-in game to begin with. Put one of those 13 and 14 loss Big Ten teams in the play-in game!

Acymetric
03-18-2011, 12:28 AM
My opinion, they should leave the Tue/Wed as it is, but the location should be the same as the second round site. You play on Tue/Wed, you win, you get a day of rest, then you play on Thu/Fri. There is no extra travel.

The problem with this is that its extra time those venues have to be booked and set up for the NCAA games. For such play in games the costs to open, set up, and staff mulitple sites probably wouldn't be even close to feasible. If they're going to have the play-in games (they shouldn't) I think the way they're doing them is fine, but they did a bad job picking who had to play their way in.

SoCalDukeFan
03-18-2011, 12:26 PM
The NCAA should go back to 64 or maybe 65 teams but they won't.

Next year they will go to 72 teams and four more first round (play in games). Games will be held in Fargo North Dakota. Some team will need to play Tuesday night in Fargo and Thursday morning in Bangor Maine. The games will be televised on a cable channel that reaches 2% of the homes in America.

Virginia Tech will be on the bubble and not selected for the tournament.

The NCAA will say that this change was made to improve the quality of the educational experience for its student athletes.

SoCal

toooskies
03-18-2011, 03:32 PM
You also don't want to move the play-in teams to play Round 1 in the Round 2 venue because it will give the Round 1 winner more familiarity with the venue. Home-court advantage has been proven to be less significant the longer the visiting team is there. It's not a significant advantage, but it's an advantage.

But then again, the NCAA clearly isn't about doing things fairly:
- Selecting/seeding teams incorrectly creates a buzz around the tournament from Sunday until Thursday.
- It's hard to believe that the committee itself doesn't purposely create storylines throughout the brackets. Consistently, there is an easiest bracket, one of the two hardest trips for the top overall seed, equivalent teams with far different seeds, and so on.
- The RPI encourages majors to play games against mid-majors with good records.
- The RPI overrates teams that win a lot against weak schedules.
- The committee doesn't use many/any subjective or objective measures of teams that it has available to them.
- Including teams that have no realistic shot of winning the tournament is technically unfair to deserving teams that still have to beat them.

One more "unfair" thing in the tournament isn't likely to change anything any time soon.