The "play-in" game


#1

Once again, I watch the play in game and think that it is one of the worst ideas ever devised for college basketball, and I can’t understand how it is able to carry on from year to year.

2 teams? That’s it? They don’t have the chance to participate in the pageantry of the BIG DANCE.


#2

you do understand where the play-in game came from and the purpose it serves right?

If you just let every new conference automatically have a bid you’d see 64 conferences soon, as every joe schmoe school would be starting a new one.


#3

Play-in game is fine…if two at-large teams played in it.


#4

[quote=“Craftsy21, post:2, topic:993”]you do understand where the play-in game came from and the purpose it serves right?

If you just let every new conference automatically have a bid you’d see 64 conferences soon, as every joe schmoe school would be starting a new one.[/quote]

Disagree! The NCAA does NOT have to allow EVERY new conference an auto bid. They can wait and see how the conference performs THEN grant a auto bid years later.

The Play-in is a ESPN - NCAA money game. Nothing else. It just shows the kids how foolish/childish adults can be…They can’t limit themselves to 64 cookies, they have to have 65…in a couple of years it will be 66…then maybe 96. People wonder why the kids don’t respect the NCAA rules.


#5

I voted for add 3 more and have 4 games, but only if those 4 games are the last 8 at large bids. Make those teams play-in. It would garner more interest and viewers.


#6
[quote="Craftsy21, post:2, topic:993"]you do understand where the play-in game came from and the purpose it serves right?

If you just let every new conference automatically have a bid you’d see 64 conferences soon, as every joe schmoe school would be starting a new one.[/quote]

Disagree! The NCAA does NOT have to allow EVERY new conference an auto bid. They can wait and see how the conference performs THEN grant a auto bid years later.

The Play-in is a ESPN - NCAA money game. Nothing else. It just shows the kids how foolish/childish adults can be…They can’t limit themselves to 64 cookies, they have to have 65…in a couple of years it will be 66…then maybe 96. People wonder why the kids don’t respect the NCAA rules.

I don’t believe there is ANY money made off the play-in game… if anything it’s a headache for ESPN and the NCAA. I think they did it because they thought it was the more fair thing to do for the new conference. The mountain west is certainly deserving of an auto-bid, as is the new WAC.

But you can’t just keep awarding spots to new conferences or you’d have 64 conferences before long.


#7
[quote="Craftsy21, post:2, topic:993"]you do understand where the play-in game came from and the purpose it serves right?

If you just let every new conference automatically have a bid you’d see 64 conferences soon, as every joe schmoe school would be starting a new one.[/quote]

Disagree! The NCAA does NOT have to allow EVERY new conference an auto bid. They can wait and see how the conference performs THEN grant a auto bid years later.

The Play-in is a ESPN - NCAA money game. Nothing else. It just shows the kids how foolish/childish adults can be…They can’t limit themselves to 64 cookies, they have to have 65…in a couple of years it will be 66…then maybe 96. People wonder why the kids don’t respect the NCAA rules.

I don’t believe there is ANY money made off the play-in game… if anything it’s a headache for ESPN and the NCAA. I think they did it because they thought it was the more fair thing to do for the new conference. The mountain west is certainly deserving of an auto-bid, as is the new WAC.

But you can’t just keep awarding spots to new conferences or you’d have 64 conferences before long.

Agree. The BCS conferences and schools were the ones that pushed hard for the game, not ESPN or the NCAA.


#8

The newest conference, the Great West, is a mish-mosh of independents scattered across the USA (Houston Baptist, Utah Valley State. South Dakota, NJIT, etc.).

The creation of this “conference” is suspect and it seems doubtful that they will be seeing an NCAA “automatic” bid any time soon.


#9

^ and rightfully so, i think. Those teams would likely struggle to compete for the D2 championship, I see very little reason to allow them to compete in the D1 just because they made a new conference… i guess the line has been drawn by the NCAA.

If they move to 96 teams though, I am going to have to reconsider my fanhood for the game.


#10

[quote=“Craftsy21, post:9, topic:993”]^ and rightfully so, i think. Those teams would likely struggle to compete for the D2 championship, I see very little reason to allow them to compete in the D1 just because they made a new conference… i guess the line has been drawn by the NCAA.

If they move to 96 teams though, I am going to have to reconsider my fanhood for the game.[/quote]
The “best” team from that conference, South Dakota, made the CIT. They lost to a barely .500 Creighton team in the first round though, so their postseason success story ended as quickly as it started.


#11
[quote="Craftsy21, post:9, topic:993"]^ and rightfully so, i think. Those teams would likely struggle to compete for the D2 championship, I see very little reason to allow them to compete in the D1 just because they made a new conference... i guess the line has been drawn by the NCAA.

If they move to 96 teams though, I am going to have to reconsider my fanhood for the game.[/quote]
The “best” team from that conference, South Dakota, made the CIT. They lost to a barely .500 Creighton team in the first round though, so their postseason success story ended as quickly as it started.

Actually, as the winner of the Great West, South Dakota was guaranteed a spot in the CIT…so technically, they did get an auotmatic bid…


#12

[quote=“Craftsy21, post:9, topic:993”]^ and rightfully so, i think. Those teams would likely struggle to compete for the D2 championship, I see very little reason to allow them to compete in the D1 just because they made a new conference… i guess the line has been drawn by the NCAA.

If they move to 96 teams though, I am going to have to reconsider my fanhood for the game. [/quote]

Agree that if the field is expanded to 96, my love for college basketball takes a big hit. The first two rounds of the tournament are, quite frankly, my favorite 4 days the tournament offers. Expanding to 96 you are decreasing the level of talent and watering down the tournament in general. If it aint broke…


#13
^ and rightfully so, i think. Those teams would likely struggle to compete for the D2 championship, I see very little reason to allow them to compete in the D1 just because they made a new conference... i guess the line has been drawn by the NCAA.

If they move to 96 teams though, I am going to have to reconsider my fanhood for the game.

Agree that if the field is expanded to 96, my love for college basketball takes a big hit. The first two rounds of the tournament are, quite frankly, my favorite 4 days the tournament offers. Expanding to 96 you are decreasing the level of talent and watering down the tournament in general. If it aint broke…

the first 4 days are 4 of my favorite days of the year, period. i’d hate for them to change it.


#14

…squeeze it for every dollar until it breaks.


#15

From the perspective of a fan who just wants to see some good games…I’d love to see 4 play-in games of the 4 teams on either side of the bubble and have them play for the 12-seeds or something like that. I don’t think the play-in game is fair for both teams, regardless of how their quality. I hate the automatic bids for winning conf tourneys, but if you do get your big (automatic or not), you should be in the real field of 64 and not playing someone else from another fairly unknown school. Give them that CBS game, regardless if it’s a 30pt drubbing at the hands of Duke, Kansas, etc…


#16

I read somewhere (Palm maybe) a good point.

The 96-team tourney could make cupcake OOC scheduling more of a norm.


#17

[quote=“Tom, post:16, topic:993”]I read somewhere (Palm maybe) a good point.

The 96-team tourney could make cupcake OOC scheduling more of a norm.[/quote]
Pheominal point, Tom!! PSU last year, VA Tech this year, get in no problems. There would be very little incentive to upgrade scedules unless there’s a TV camera involved.


#18

I love watching great games as well. The tournament currently has PLENTY of games. I do not think I would ever watch any play-in game (unless PSU were a participant). Maybe I’m in the minority on this, IDK. The idea of watching a pre-tournament tournament is of little value to me. Give me that first Thursday and Friday as well as the 2nd round weekend and I’m golden.


#19
[quote="Craftsy21, post:2, topic:993"]you do understand where the play-in game came from and the purpose it serves right?

If you just let every new conference automatically have a bid you’d see 64 conferences soon, as every joe schmoe school would be starting a new one.[/quote]

Disagree! The NCAA does NOT have to allow EVERY new conference an auto bid. They can wait and see how the conference performs THEN grant a auto bid years later.

The Play-in is a ESPN - NCAA money game. Nothing else. It just shows the kids how foolish/childish adults can be…They can’t limit themselves to 64 cookies, they have to have 65…in a couple of years it will be 66…then maybe 96. People wonder why the kids don’t respect the NCAA rules.

I don’t believe there is ANY money made off the play-in game… if anything it’s a headache for ESPN and the NCAA. I think they did it because they thought it was the more fair thing to do for the new conference. The mountain west is certainly deserving of an auto-bid, as is the new WAC.

But you can’t just keep awarding spots to new conferences or you’d have 64 conferences before long.

Agree. The BCS conferences and schools were the ones that pushed hard for the game, not ESPN or the NCAA.

No historical accuracy in these statements.

To this point, the NCAA HAS given an auto-bid to every new conference, and so far there has not been an explosion of conferences. I think we are a far, far, far way from 64 auto-bids. How many new conferences have been added in the past 20 years?


#20

The other thing is that I don’t really think first round games generate that much interest. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but adding a preliminary round could only cut those numbers down even more.

For as much as people love talking about brackets and such, you don’t really see all that many people watching the games until the final four. We’re talking low to high 4 ratings. Even the NFL pro bowl, which most people claim is awful, generated a 7.9 rating this year.

I can’t understand how there would be THAT much money in adding another round, not to mention a WORSE round that could potentially just weed out more fringe fans.