First Four


#1

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5374116

Is it possible that the NCAA did something that actually makes some sense? Egads ;D


#2

Let’s see how it plays out…

With time, I think the NCAA will find a way to “screw it up.”


#3

I didn’t like it and I still don’t.

How’s the seeding going to work? I’ve read over this a few times but I’m kind of in a hurry and maybe I’m missing it… but it sounds like it’s the last four at large’s, who are usually 16 seeds… and the last 4 at-large teams… that are usually 10-13th seeds.

So where do the winners of these matchups get seeded, and when?

Does that mean official 64 team brackets aren’t set until Wednesday night? Have they just gone ahead and torn apart the entire office pool system as we know it as a result?

The whole thing just makes no sense… if you want to add 4 at-large teams, they should have to play the next 4 at-large teams and the places they would fit into the tournament should be pre-set in the 12-13 range somewhere depending on the auto bids that year.

Why are you punishing teams that rightfully are earning their spot, and in the process throwing out the 3-days people spend filling out brackets (and CARING about college basketball more than any other time during the year, by a HUGE amount) in order to make a few extra bucks?

Maybe they have this figured out better than I realize or the article leads on… but to me they are really dropping the ball here worse than I even imagined they would.


#4

NCAA: “Let’s make a few extra bucks by adding 4 teams to the tournament, and in the process lose millions in the next round of TV contracts because we’ll kill the ratings by ruining office pools. BRILLIANT!”


#5

I think the final four automatic bid teams are essentially now #17 seeds, and they will play the last four at-large teams for the right to improve their seed (more or less). If the last four at large teams include two #12’s and two #11’s, then those four teams play the #17 seeds, with the winner staying on that line (IE - If a #17 seed beats a #12 seed, then the #17 seed plays the #5 seed in the second round).

If I understand that correctly, I think a team would rather be a #17 seed than a #16 seed, and the #5, #6, #7 seed would benefit greatly from an upset.

I also skimmed the article, so I could be WAY OFF ???


#6

[quote=“NICU, post:5, topic:1256”]I think the final four automatic bid teams are essentially now #17 seeds, and they will play the last four at-large teams for the right to improve their seed (more or less). If the last four at large teams include two #12’s and two #11’s, then those four teams play the #17 seeds, with the winner staying on that line (IE - If a #17 seed beats a #12 seed, then the #17 seed plays the #5 seed in the second round).

If I understand that correctly, I think a team would rather be a #17 seed than a #16 seed, and the #5, #6, #7 seed would benefit greatly from an upset.

I also skimmed the article, so I could be WAY OFF ???[/quote]

Yeah, which again is totally dumb because as you said you’re better off being a 17 seed than a 16 seed, which should never happen.

You play a 11,12, or 13 type of team and then a 5,6, or 7 team instead of having to face a 1 seed (which has never lost to a 16).

Granted if you’re bad enough to be one of those 17 seeds it’s unlikely you’d win both games, but it’s almost impossible if you’re a 16. I’d take my chances with the 17.


#7

[quote=“Craftsy21, post:3, topic:1256”]I didn’t like it and I still don’t.

How’s the seeding going to work? I’ve read over this a few times but I’m kind of in a hurry and maybe I’m missing it… but it sounds like it’s the last four at large’s, who are usually 16 seeds… and the last 4 at-large teams… that are usually 10-13th seeds.

So where do the winners of these matchups get seeded, and when?

Does that mean official 64 team brackets aren’t set until Wednesday night? Have they just gone ahead and torn apart the entire office pool system as we know it as a result?

The whole thing just makes no sense… if you want to add 4 at-large teams, they should have to play the next 4 at-large teams and the places they would fit into the tournament should be pre-set in the 12-13 range somewhere depending on the auto bids that year.

Why are you punishing teams that rightfully are earning their spot, and in the process throwing out the 3-days people spend filling out brackets (and CARING about college basketball more than any other time during the year, by a HUGE amount) in order to make a few extra bucks?

Maybe they have this figured out better than I realize or the article leads on… but to me they are really dropping the ball here worse than I even imagined they would.[/quote]

Actually, I disagree entirely. I think they got this one right - and better than I thought they would.

The winners of the play-in games are slotting right into where the higher ranked team, i.e. the 12-13 seed would normally be seeded.

This actually works out good for the major programs since they will be the ones that will most likely get the three extra slots - and it works out well for the real little guys because the former 16 seeds will now play a game that they might actually be able to win.


#8

I’ve been calling for bubble team play-ins since expansion talks started. :slight_smile:


#9
[quote="Craftsy21, post:3, topic:1256"]I didn't like it and I still don't.

How’s the seeding going to work? I’ve read over this a few times but I’m kind of in a hurry and maybe I’m missing it… but it sounds like it’s the last four at large’s, who are usually 16 seeds… and the last 4 at-large teams… that are usually 10-13th seeds.

So where do the winners of these matchups get seeded, and when?

Does that mean official 64 team brackets aren’t set until Wednesday night? Have they just gone ahead and torn apart the entire office pool system as we know it as a result?

The whole thing just makes no sense… if you want to add 4 at-large teams, they should have to play the next 4 at-large teams and the places they would fit into the tournament should be pre-set in the 12-13 range somewhere depending on the auto bids that year.

Why are you punishing teams that rightfully are earning their spot, and in the process throwing out the 3-days people spend filling out brackets (and CARING about college basketball more than any other time during the year, by a HUGE amount) in order to make a few extra bucks?

Maybe they have this figured out better than I realize or the article leads on… but to me they are really dropping the ball here worse than I even imagined they would.[/quote]

Actually, I disagree entirely. I think they got this one right - and better than I thought they would.

The winners of the play-in games are slotting right into where the higher ranked team, i.e. the 12-13 seed would normally be seeded.

This actually works out good for the major programs since they will be the ones that will most likely get the three extra slots - and it works out well for the real little guys because the former 16 seeds will now play a game that they might actually be able to win.

And the former 15’s now slide into a position where they will likely never win, whereas they at least had a glimmer of hope before… all in the name of adding a few extra at-large spots.

It’s not like anybody will treat these 4 extra games as part of the tournament either. It’s not the same for those last 4 auto teams to have to play a couple of days before the main event just to please the BCS conferences, they deserve a real spot in the tournament over a 10th place team from the big east.

But hey - that’s just my opinion.


#10

It’s not the kind of bubble team play-in i was hoping for. I want to see last four in vs last four out, if I have to put up with this expansion crap. Don’t punish the little guys to reward mediocre big guys.


#11

No way an automatic qualifier should have to play a game to re-qualify.


#12

Oh they don’t, this is the NEW first round. :rolleyes:


#13
[quote="Craftsy21, post:3, topic:1256"]I didn't like it and I still don't.

How’s the seeding going to work? I’ve read over this a few times but I’m kind of in a hurry and maybe I’m missing it… but it sounds like it’s the last four at large’s, who are usually 16 seeds… and the last 4 at-large teams… that are usually 10-13th seeds.

So where do the winners of these matchups get seeded, and when?

Does that mean official 64 team brackets aren’t set until Wednesday night? Have they just gone ahead and torn apart the entire office pool system as we know it as a result?

The whole thing just makes no sense… if you want to add 4 at-large teams, they should have to play the next 4 at-large teams and the places they would fit into the tournament should be pre-set in the 12-13 range somewhere depending on the auto bids that year.

Why are you punishing teams that rightfully are earning their spot, and in the process throwing out the 3-days people spend filling out brackets (and CARING about college basketball more than any other time during the year, by a HUGE amount) in order to make a few extra bucks?

Maybe they have this figured out better than I realize or the article leads on… but to me they are really dropping the ball here worse than I even imagined they would.[/quote]

Actually, I disagree entirely. I think they got this one right - and better than I thought they would.

The winners of the play-in games are slotting right into where the higher ranked team, i.e. the 12-13 seed would normally be seeded.

This actually works out good for the major programs since they will be the ones that will most likely get the three extra slots - and it works out well for the real little guys because the former 16 seeds will now play a game that they might actually be able to win.

And the former 15’s now slide into a position where they will likely never win, whereas they at least had a glimmer of hope before… all in the name of adding a few extra at-large spots.

It’s not like anybody will treat these 4 extra games as part of the tournament either. It’s not the same for those last 4 auto teams to have to play a couple of days before the main event just to please the BCS conferences, they deserve a real spot in the tournament over a 10th place team from the big east.

But hey - that’s just my opinion.

Frankly, I think there’s a bigger delta between the 15s and 16s than there is between the 1s and 2s. So rather than the 15s suddenly having no chance of winning, I think the 1s chances of losing just got much greater.


#14
[quote="Tom, post:11, topic:1256"]No way an automatic qualifier should have to play a game to re-qualify.[/quote]

Oh they don’t, this is the NEW first round. :rolleyes:

The fact that the first round games will most likely include major programs gives them a credibility that the old “play-in” game never head. These games will be thought of as legit opening round games and won’t be thought of as play-in games.


#15

Now that you mention it…I agree. BUT, it’s all about NOT knocking out teams with panache.What you will see is:

East Tennessee State (Conf Champ) vs 7th place Minnehaha/SCum/etc.
Note: Haha’s and SCum’s panache is fleeting.

Look for a lot of camera shots of the Haha and SCum HCs.


#16
[quote="Tom, post:11, topic:1256"]No way an automatic qualifier should have to play a game to re-qualify.[/quote]

Now that you mention it…I agree. BUT, it’s all about NOT knocking out teams with panache.What you will see is:

East Tennessee State (Conf Champ) vs 7th place Minnehaha/SCum/etc.
Note: Haha’s and SCum’s panache is fleeting.

Look for a lot of camera shots of the Haha and SCum HCs.

I read it to be that the games would be four autoqualifiers vying for two 16 seeds, than the four at-large teams vying for some combination of two 10-12 seeds.


#17
[quote="Tom, post:11, topic:1256"]No way an automatic qualifier should have to play a game to re-qualify.[/quote]

Now that you mention it…I agree. BUT, it’s all about NOT knocking out teams with panache.What you will see is:

East Tennessee State (Conf Champ) vs 7th place Minnehaha/SCum/etc.
Note: Haha’s and SCum’s panache is fleeting.

Look for a lot of camera shots of the Haha and SCum HCs.

I read it to be that the games would be four autoqualifiers vying for two 16 seeds, than the four at-large teams vying for some combination of two 10-12 seeds.

According to a Charlotte Observer blogger, that is exactly how it will go down. The four lowest seeded teams will play for two 16 seeds and the four last at-large teams will play for two 12/13 seeds.

http://aboverim.blogspot.com/2010/07/ncaa-unveils-complicated-new-68-team.html


#18

^That makes much more sense.


#19
[quote="Tom, post:11, topic:1256"]No way an automatic qualifier should have to play a game to re-qualify.[/quote]

Now that you mention it…I agree. BUT, it’s all about NOT knocking out teams with panache.What you will see is:

East Tennessee State (Conf Champ) vs 7th place Minnehaha/SCum/etc.
Note: Haha’s and SCum’s panache is fleeting.

Look for a lot of camera shots of the Haha and SCum HCs.

I read it to be that the games would be four autoqualifiers vying for two 16 seeds, than the four at-large teams vying for some combination of two 10-12 seeds.

According to a Charlotte Observer blogger, that is exactly how it will go down. The four lowest seeded teams will play for two 16 seeds and the four last at-large teams will play for two 12/13 seeds.

http://aboverim.blogspot.com/2010/07/ncaa-unveils-complicated-new-68-team.html

It will still mess up brackets. For example, I want to know who the 12 seed is before I pick a 12/5 upset. Maybe it won’t affect pool popularity, but it seems like a lot of risk for 3 more play-in games.

And yes, they are play-in games not the new “first round.” You can’t give almost 90% of your teams a “first round” bye.


#20

This is one thing I have to watch the First Four games to see if I like it or not. I do believe this format will up the chances of a 1-16 upset because of the old difference in 15-16 jumps. The 12 seed games will just be extra games that should be even matches. Close games and upsets make the Tournament.

Does the 12-5 upset become more frequent because the number 12 seeds will have had a games experience in the tournament?