NCAA Tuesday "First Four" Games

[cdwduke1965]

For my very first DBR post, I'm going to display my ignorance about the NCAA tournament:
I have always assumed that the 4 "First Four" (play-in) games in Dayton were being played to determine the #16 seed in each of the four regions. But in looking at the bracket, I see that there is not a 1-game-per-region format. There is one (Albany/Mt. St. Mary's) for the South, but in addition to the #16 game from the Midwest (Cal Poly/Texas Southern), the Midwest is also the region of the other 2 games (Iowa/Tennessee and NC State/Xavier). And in those 2 games, the seedings at stake are either #11 or #12. This seems very strange! Why does a team projected to a seeding as high as #11 or #12 have to play an "extra" game that the teams seeded below it do not have to play? I think the reason may have to do with who has an "automatic" bid and who doesn't. It's saying to, for example, NCSU, "You don't have an automatic bid like, say, Wofford and Mercer do, so you have to play your way into the weekend games. But if you get there, since you're a better team than Wofford or Mercer, you will be ranked above them." If that is the reasoning, I still haven't worked out why the Midwest Region has two "extra" play-in games. Anybody out there able to shed some light? Many thanks for the opportunity to ask! And if we don't come up with an answer, we can at least all agree that we're pulling for the Blue Devils to run the table and bring home a 5th national championship!

[-jk]

When the NCAA recognized more conferences (and their official champs with auto-bids), the "big" conferences screamed bloody murder. "How dare you give away bids that could come to us!"

The NCAA added a couple more "play-in" game for the bubble teams, typically 11 or 12 seeds. So now we have a couple play in games for 16 seeds and a couple for at-large bubble teams.

They try to minimize travel after the Dayton games, and give a couple days between.

-jk

[kshepinthehouse]

Money is the reason that makes the most sense to me. More teams, more games, more money. Probably will add a few more teams in the next couple of years

[Newton_14]

When the NCAA recognized more conferences (and their official champs with auto-bids), the "big" conferences screamed bloody murder. "How dare you give away bids that could come to us!"

The NCAA added a couple more "play-in" game for the bubble teams, typically 11 or 12 seeds. So now we have a couple play in games for 16 seeds and a couple for at-large bubble teams.

They try to minimize travel after the Dayton games, and give a couple days between.

-jk

I heard discussion today that they are considering moving to a format whereby all 4 of the play in games involve bubble teams fighting for all four of the 12 seeds or maybe two of the 11 seeds and two of the 12 seeds. That way the winners of the small conferences that end up with a 16 seed, get to actually have their chance against a 1 Seed. I like that idea actually. I know they got a higher seed but I would have hated it if NC Central "got in" only to have to beat another small school to get to play on Thurs or Fri.

I think that would be fair. Let the little guys that won 30 games and their conference have their shot at a big dawg, and let the bubble teams with 13 losses battle it out for the right to play on Thurs or Fri.

[Faustus]

I agree entirely with Newton. This is the championship tournament of all members of Division 1 of the NCAA. To then sentence winners of eight of the little conferences to the dreaded halfway house of having to beat another little champion just to get into the "real" 64 team rounds is a great disservice. Sure, American U. is not as talented as Iowa or Tennessee or NC State. So? American won its conference tournament and gained its rightful admission to The Dance. Iowa and Tennesse had their chance to win their conference or tournament, but did not. Why reward them over American? I'm tired of hearing "only the best 64 teams in the country should be included." No, the conference champions are the rightful participants. The additional at-large berths are really gifts from the tournament committee, are only allowed in, really, to fill out the brackets after the conference 'winners' have staked their positions.

To be honest, if the rationale were truly to be only the best teams being invided, 64 is far too high a number - 16 or 32 would make more sense to me that way, teams who really could win it all. Remember when the tournament WAS only 32 teams, all conference champions, and then gradually only a very few "at-large" entries? But this year, does anyone really think BYU or Iowa is going to win it? Why invite them? Mercer and NCCU and Albany won their way in and earned admission. They'll probably be in mis-matches (sure hope Mercer is) and CBS won't get as high ratings or ad revenue, but how sad is it that the NCAA is more interested in lining their own person coffers with money rather than representing all the members of their own supposed organization? So let the lesser champions play, and not in some probationary round the next two nights either.

[freshmanjs]

I agree entirely with Newton. This is the championship tournament of all members of Division 1 of the NCAA. To then sentence winners of eight of the little conferences to the dreaded halfway house of having to beat another little champion just to get into the "real" 64 team rounds is a great disservice. Sure, American U. is not as talented as Iowa or Tennessee or NC State. So? American won its conference tournament and gained its rightful admission to The Dance. Iowa and Tennesse had their chance to win their conference or tournament, but did not. Why reward them over American? I'm tired of hearing "only the best 64 teams in the country should be included." No, the conference champions are the rightful participants. The additional at-large berths are really gifts from the tournament committee, are only allowed in, really, to fill out the brackets after the conference 'winners' have staked their positions.

To be honest, if the rationale were truly to be only the best teams being invided, 64 is far too high a number - 16 or 32 would make more sense to me that way, teams who really could win it all. Remember when the tournament WAS only 32 teams, all conference champions, and then gradually only a very few "at-large" entries? But this year, does anyone really think BYU or Iowa is going to win it? Why invite them? Mercer and NCCU and Albany won their way in and earned admission. They'll probably be in mis-matches (sure hope Mercer is) and CBS won't get as high ratings or ad revenue, but how sad is it that the NCAA is more interested in lining their own person coffers with money rather than representing all the members of their own supposed organization? So let the lesser champions play, and not in some probationary round the next two nights either.


vcu went from the play-in game to the final 4.

[brevity]

It continues to be an absolute abomination that the NCAA requires automatic qualifiers to play their way into the round of 64. The automatic bid is designed to make the conference tournament so important as to trump the entire regular season. It logically follows that Cal Poly (13-19), presumably the lowest rated of the automatic qualifiers, deserves to be in the NCAA Tournament more than Dayton or Nebraska, presumably the lowest rated of the at-large teams that don't have to play until Thursday or Friday. (Side note: anyone else think that Dayton is exempt from play-in games because they take place on their home court?)


Money is the reason that makes the most sense to me. More teams, more games, more money. Probably will add a few more teams in the next couple of years


I heard discussion today that they are considering moving to a format whereby all 4 of the play in games involve bubble teams fighting for all four of the 12 seeds or maybe two of the 11 seeds and two of the 12 seeds. That way the winners of the small conferences that end up with a 16 seed, get to actually have their chance against a 1 Seed. I like that idea actually. I know they got a higher seed but I would have hated it if NC Central "got in" only to have to beat another small school to get to play on Thurs or Fri.

I think that would be fair. Let the little guys that won 30 games and their conference have their shot at a big dawg, and let the bubble teams with 13 losses battle it out for the right to play on Thurs or Fri.

Hey, let's mix Kshep's chocolate with Newton's peanut butter. (Sorry. Too many Reese's commercials.)

You could foresee a compromise where every automatic qualifier skips the play-in games, but the tournament field accommodates the multi-bid conferences by expanding to 72 teams. The 16 lowest at-large teams play 8 games (4 on Tuesday, 4 on Wednesday). The Tuesday winners go to Thursday sites, and the Wednesday winners go to Friday sites. The trick is planning exactly four slots on Thursday and four slots on Friday that would be for 11 or 12 seeds. This would mean that the 3-seed pods (where the 11 seeds go) and the 4-seed pods (where the 12 seeds go) would have to be distributed just right.

I don't actually expect the Selection Committee to get this done; it's 2014 and they're still trying to understand BYU. The easy solution is to slightly redefine the lowest at-large teams so that they are always the 12 and 13 seeds. This means they would all go to the 4-seed pods. Then the Committee would only have to ensure that two 4-seed pods play Thursday and the other two play Friday. (They could even take it a step further by eliminating the Dayton site altogether, and having the 4-seed sites host the Tuesday or Wednesday games.)

[sporthenry]

The other side of the coin is that these 16 seeds get to be the center of attention for one night and possibly win a game in the NCAAT. Not a huge fan of having auto qualifiers play in the play in game but I see some positive as they are most likely going to lose by 30 against a 1 seed regardless.

But I am against adding any more teams. Adding 3 more already makes it more confusing especially with at large teams playing. Makes it more difficult to fill out brackets as the last at large team won't be known to 11:00 PM EST. And lets be serious, the brackets are what fuels the interest. And the difference between Iowa or Tennessee being the 11 seed is rather big. Adding more teams/uncertainty in the brackets will just cause people to eventually lose interest. And quite frankly, there is no reason to add more teams. Bubble has been getting weaker and weaker and these teams aren't national title contenders (VCU withstanding).

[blazindw]

I heard discussion today that they are considering moving to a format whereby all 4 of the play in games involve bubble teams fighting for all four of the 12 seeds or maybe two of the 11 seeds and two of the 12 seeds. That way the winners of the small conferences that end up with a 16 seed, get to actually have their chance against a 1 Seed. I like that idea actually. I know they got a higher seed but I would have hated it if NC Central "got in" only to have to beat another small school to get to play on Thurs or Fri.

I think that would be fair. Let the little guys that won 30 games and their conference have their shot at a big dawg, and let the bubble teams with 13 losses battle it out for the right to play on Thurs or Fri.

I definitely agree with this. If you win your conference tournament or get the automatic bid from your conference (Ivy), you deserve to play on Thursday or Friday. You're a bubble team that thinks you deserve to be in the tourney? Play your way in. Have 2 play-ins for 11 seeds and 2 for 12 seeds. Show that you deserve to be a part of the Field of 64. Those smaller schools have already done that.

[UrinalCake]

My daughter is 7 and is just starting to get interested in basketball (hooray!). So we watched some of the games together this past weekend, and started talking about the NCAA tournament.

I started explaining the format in simple terms - teams with better records get to play against teams with not-as-good records. If you win, you get to play again, until there is only one team left.

But then I had to explain the "first four" to her, and didn't even bother to try.

[uh_no]

what people are ignoring is that if a 16 seed gets to play a play in game and wins, they get credit for a win in the tourney...and thus are eligible for something like 1/67 of the tournament money.....

if you're a school that doesn't have the kind of resources duke does, having the opportunity to get 1/67 share by beating another 16 seed vs having to beat a 1 seed is pretty appealing....

yeah it sucks for the team that ultimately lost...but it's really good for the team that wins.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

The other side of the coin is that these 16 seeds get to be the center of attention for one night and possibly win a game in the NCAAT. Not a huge fan of having auto qualifiers play in the play in game but I see some positive as they are most likely going to lose by 30 against a 1 seed regardless.

But I am against adding any more teams. Adding 3 more already makes it more confusing especially with at large teams playing. Makes it more difficult to fill out brackets as the last at large team won't be known to 11:00 PM EST. And lets be serious, the brackets are what fuels the interest. And the difference between Iowa or Tennessee being the 11 seed is rather big. Adding more teams/uncertainty in the brackets will just cause people to eventually lose interest. And quite frankly, there is no reason to add more teams. Bubble has been getting weaker and weaker and these teams aren't national title contenders (VCU withstanding).

I agree with other posters that conference champs should get a go at thr "real" big dance. I disagree that these play-in games offer "center of attention" status, as lots of basketball fans are spending their last quality nights with family for the next two weeks and tweaking their Billion Dollar Brackets.

[Bluedog]

what people are ignoring is that if a 16 seed gets to play a play in game and wins, they get credit for a win in the tourney...and thus are eligible for something like 1/67 of the tournament money.....

if you're a school that doesn't have the kind of resources duke does, having the opportunity to get 1/67 share by beating another 16 seed vs having to beat a 1 seed is pretty appealing....

yeah it sucks for the team that ultimately lost...but it's really good for the team that wins.

Yeah, very true, the NCAA distributes money based on how many games a team played (and I haven't heard anything to suggest that the new "first round" games are treated differently). To be fair, though, it's really distributed to the conference over a six year rolling period and then the conference distributes it to its member institutions. I believe most conferences split it equally. There was an article in Forbes about how Wichita State actually lost money last year despite making the Final Four (while they have basically made money every other year) because of increased travel expenses and a coach's bonus as a result of them making it so far. Since the money is distributed to the conference, the conference itself takes a share, and then splits the remainder for its member institutions over the years...obviously, the windfall from the appearance for that given year isn't that huge.

[flyingdutchdevil]

...but I figured this is a good place to put this. I know few are fans of Grantland, but our very own Shane Ryan has this hilarious dictionary of NCAA terms:

http://grantland.com/features/shane-ryan-college-basketball-grantland-dictionary/

I found it amusing and quite accurate.

[Wander]

When the NCAA recognized more conferences (and their official champs with auto-bids), the "big" conferences screamed bloody murder. "How dare you give away bids that could come to us!"

The NCAA added a couple more "play-in" game for the bubble teams, typically 11 or 12 seeds. So now we have a couple play in games for 16 seeds and a couple for at-large bubble teams.


Well, sort of. My recollection is that this is why the original play-in game was added (between two 16 seeds, because they recently added a conference), but the later addition of three extra bids happened more or less because Jim Boeheim whined a lot. I don't care how what Syracuse does or how often he's on the Olympic staff with K, I'm never going to forgive that guy for spearheading tournament expansion. 64 teams is the perfect amount.

[sagegrouse]

For my very first DBR post, I'm going to display my ignorance about the NCAA tournament:
I have always assumed that the 4 "First Four" (play-in) games in Dayton were being played to determine the #16 seed in each of the four regions. But in looking at the bracket, I see that there is not a 1-game-per-region format. There is one (Albany/Mt. St. Mary's) for the South, but in addition to the #16 game from the Midwest (Cal Poly/Texas Southern), the Midwest is also the region of the other 2 games (Iowa/Tennessee and NC State/Xavier).

This is about fairness, and I (and apparently only I) give the NCAA a lot of credit. It protects the ability of schools from the smaller conferences to play in the round of 64. Without this, if you were to expand the tournament even more, which will probably happen, the auto qualifiers from the smaller conferences would become lower and lower seeds, resulting in a "play-in round" consisting only of such schools. That's wrong.

This way the at-large qualifiers can come into the field as the last at-large selection, but they have to compete for the round of 64 through a "play-in" game.

I agree with the NCAA on this, and I think it would be wrong to let the large schools hog the main 64-team field.

Kindly,
Sage