NCAA Tournament Naming of Rounds, Are First Four games the "first round?"

historyman · March 18, 2013, 06:09:02 PM

I found this story and since it pertains to a discussion from another thread I thought I would post it here.

My opinion is that since people got used to calling the first four games "play-in" games that the NCAA should not keep changing things that the public has just gotten used to and they should keep calling them "play-in" games until there are more teams playing in those games than there are teams waiting to play.

http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2013/march/the-first-four-is-not-the-first-round-no-matter-what-the-ncaa-says.html

vuweathernerd · March 18, 2013, 06:28:25 PM

i'm in complete agreement here - the games tomorrow are the play-in games, not the first round. and if the ncaa is deadset on calling it that, well, they're just wrong.

StlVUFan · March 18, 2013, 06:41:03 PM

I think it's also instructive that not one single NCAA Div. I basketball fan, pundit, or official is going around talking about the 60 teams who got 1st round byes on Sunday.

That should kill the whole thing right there.

justducky · March 18, 2013, 06:43:11 PM

Quote from: vuweathernerd on March 18, 2013, 06:28:25 PMi'm in complete agreement here - the games tomorrow are the play-in games, not the first round. and if the ncaa is deadset on calling it that, well, they're just wrong.

As I have said before they can call it whatever they like and we can choose to call it what it really is. Obviously the NCAA can get some things wrong and we need look no further than yesterdays seeding for a prime example. I am still considering sending them a picture of my ass with a request that it be placed on file to be the first thing reviewed before the difficult 2014 seeding process is begun.

LaPorteAveApostle · March 18, 2013, 08:20:55 PM

Quote from: justducky on March 18, 2013, 06:43:11 PMI am still considering sending them a picture of my ass

me too. and if they wonder why, well, our mod did say to bare with him in another thread

bbtds · March 18, 2013, 10:46:08 PM

Quote from: justducky on March 18, 2013, 06:43:11 PMI am still considering sending them a picture of my ass with a request that it be placed on file to be the first thing reviewed before the difficult 2014 seeding process is begun.

I'm sure HC's photographer would be glad to take that picture for you. He's good at getting pictures of certain anatomy.

wh · March 18, 2013, 11:25:42 PM

How is this any different than a 9-team conference tournament (see WCC tournament bracket) where the 8th and 9th seeds play in round one and the other 7 teams get a bye? It's a 9 team tournament, not an 8 team tournament with a "play-in" game. I don't have a big problem seeing the NCAA Tournament the same way.

a3uge · March 18, 2013, 11:46:12 PM

Quote from: wh on March 18, 2013, 11:25:42 PM
How is this any different than a 9-team conference tournament where the 8th and 9th seeds play in round one and the other 7 teams get a bye? It's a 9 team tournament, not an 8 team tournament with a play-in game. I don't have a big problem seeing the NCAA Tournament the same way.

I think the awkward part is that its 11 and 13 seeds that have to play Wednesday and it isn't the lowest seeds (thank god) who are the first teams out. So a 16 can be in the "second round" while an 11 gets sent home in the first. In a 9 team conference, at least it's the top seeds getting byes. You wouldn't really see an 9 vs 1 match up with the 2-8 getting a bye. But I can't really think of the opening games as play in games anymore because the teams seemingly now have an actual shot to win in the round of 64. I think the whole format needs to get looked at before they randomly keep adding teams to various spots on the Bracket. Too many Wednesday night games might take some of the mystique that is "Match Madness"

LaPorteAveApostle · March 19, 2013, 09:27:55 AM

you know why these supposed "first round" games don't matter?

(i have proof!)

...because NO ONE'S BRACKET COMPETITION begins until the Thursday games.

Kyle321n · March 19, 2013, 10:30:15 AM

If they want to have the 68 team field make sense I propose this (see the abbr's for round names):

You win your conference tournament (or if you're the Ivy League), you're automatically in the Field of 64.
If you are one of the top 29 at large bids you are seeded somewhere between 1 and 11 and are also in the Field of 64.
If you are one of the last 8 teams in the tournament, you have to travel to Dayton for what is currently the First Round and the teams will be listed as seeds 61 thru 68 for that game. The winner of those games will move on to play the 5 seeds and will be seeded 12.

jack · March 19, 2013, 11:18:18 AM

They've watered down the whole process. Need to do away with the "play-in" games and get back to the field of 64. If they should do anything, they should expand the NIT field. I would think these "play-in" teams would prefer a shot at a realistic goal, and not an honorary mention as an NCAA tournament participant. If not that, then expand the CBI and shift teams down a bracket. When you tweek things too much, you take away from the reason the tourney was created in the first place. At the end of the day, it's about adding a little extra revenue, or they wouldn't even consider it.

historyman · March 19, 2013, 02:40:57 PM

For the same reason that jack stated above....money.....the NCAA will eventually expand the Big Dance to 96 teams and give the top 32 a bye. That is the real reason they are starting to call the "play-in" games the first round.