Originally Posted by
tommy
Jason, either I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, or else I think you may be misunderstanding, or more likely inadvertently misstating the way this works.
The expansion to a 68 team tournament means this: Teams 65 through 68 play each other, and the two winners advance to face #1 seeds. So those two #1 seeds play teams that wouldn't have made the top 64, meaning they're the equivalent of #17 seeds. Yes, because those teams would've received automatic bids anyway, they would've acutually been #16 seeds in the old days, but nevertheless they are teams not considered by the committee to be in the Top 64 (i.e. the "real" top 16 seeds) in this tournament.
The other two #1 seeds play teams designated as #16 seeds as well, so they're teams 63 and 64. Basically, there are six #16 seeds, and the bottom four of them play off to get into the field. But no #1 seeds have to play a #15 seed, or any team rated by the committee as being overall #s 59 through 62, which correlates to a 15 seed. Note: normally, the #15 seeds would be overall #s 57 through 60, but everyone gets bumped down two spots because of the peculiar way this tournament is structured, with six #12 seeds instead of four.
For the same reason, when the tournament had a 65 team field, none of the #1's played a team that would've been a #15. They all played a 16, or perhaps the lone true #17 seed (the #65 overall team).
All that being said, I do agree that the chances of a #1 losing its opener are rising, but I think it's because the small conference teams who are those #16s are becoming better and better, while the elite teams (the #1's) are not as good as they were in years past. Or even close.