PDA

View Full Version : Please abolish the play-in game.



Playadlc
03-12-2007, 10:19 PM
I think this is one of the dumbest things in sports.

It is utterly ridiculous to make two teams that win their conference play an extra game. Everyone calls it the "play-in game", which clearly implies that they're not IN the tournament yet, no matter how many times CBS says its a 65 team tournament.

I know that might mean a deserving school would be left out some year, but who cares. Let the little guys have their day. For cryin' out loud, the non-BCS schools are barely elligible for at-large bids anyway.

Sorry, but this really bugs me. If you want to have a real play-in game, than make it against bubble teams. Let Syracuse play Arkansas if you want a play-in game so badly. Don't screw a team that wins it's conference tournament.

rotnoid
03-12-2007, 10:30 PM
I heard an interesting idea today. Rather than making one "play-in" game, it was suggested that these teams (since they won their conference tourney) get in the field and there be a total of 4 play-in games-one in each region-involvind the bubble teams. This way teams like Drexel, K State, Syracuse, and Air Force would have a chance to play teams like Illinois, Arkansas, et al for the chance to dance. I was a little against it at first, but it makes more sense than punishing a conference champion.

Caveat Emperor
03-12-2007, 10:49 PM
If you get an automatic bid to the tournament for your conference, you shouldn't have to play an extra game.

Period.

KronoRed
03-13-2007, 12:51 AM
Expand to 96 teams and give 32 1st round byes.

George Anderson
03-13-2007, 01:09 AM
What I would like to see is all 334 Division 1 teams enter the tournament. If my math is correct there would only be two more games needed to play and win in order to advance to the National Championship game. On one side I can see some not liking it because the regular season and conference tournaments wouldnt be as important , but you would eliminate schools who felt they got snubbed by not being selected and you really open up the possibility for a real "Cinderella" team to make it to the top. Cant say I am sold on the idea but its something to think about.

texasdave
03-13-2007, 02:09 AM
If you consider the league tournaments as 'play in' tournaments then most every school is in the NCAA tournament, in a sense.

919191
03-13-2007, 08:56 AM
Does this really add significantly yo the revenue?

Chip R
03-13-2007, 10:00 AM
I heard an interesting idea today. Rather than making one "play-in" game, it was suggested that these teams (since they won their conference tourney) get in the field and there be a total of 4 play-in games-one in each region-involvind the bubble teams. This way teams like Drexel, K State, Syracuse, and Air Force would have a chance to play teams like Illinois, Arkansas, et al for the chance to dance.


It'd never work cause Syracuse would actually have to play a game off campus. :p:

macro
03-13-2007, 10:05 AM
If you consider the league tournaments as 'play in' tournaments then most every school is in the NCAA tournament, in a sense.

Exactly!! With the exception of the four lowest-finishing Big East teams, who don't get to play in the Big East Tournament, every NCAA D1 team is in. If these teams don't want to get "snubbed", then they should try losing fewer games.

I agree with Playa in that they need to set the field at 64 and leave it there. If they expand to 80, teams 81-86 will complain. If they expand to 96, teams 97-102 will complain.

The fairest way to determine a champion would be a 32-team double-elimination.

(By the way, I didn't know until yesterday how this silly play-in game got started. Some conference somewhere split into two conferences, so they had an additional automatic bid. They didn't want to reduce the at-large by one, so they came up with this novel idea.)

rotnoid
03-13-2007, 10:15 AM
I agree with Playa in that they need to set the field at 64 and leave it there. If they expand to 80, teams 81-86 will complain. If they expand to 96, teams 97-102 will complain.

The fairest way to determine a champion would be a 32-team double-elimination.

That's an interesting idea. Of course, it eliminates all the small conferences. Or deserving non-champions. On another note, did everyone complete their NIT brackets? :laugh: :laugh:

registerthis
03-13-2007, 10:23 AM
If you get an automatic bid to the tournament for your conference, you shouldn't have to play an extra game.

Period.

Agree completely.

texasdave
03-13-2007, 10:29 AM
They could stop all that whining by the bubble teams that didn't make it into the NCAA by simply having the NCAA winner meet the NIT winner. That way there wouldn't be a single bubble team that wanted to be in the NCAA in the first place. They would all want to get into the NIT thinking that was their best chance of making the championship game. Of course then you would have the bubble teams complaining that they really weren't one of the best 64/65 teams and should be in the NIT. :laugh:

macro
03-13-2007, 10:34 AM
Not to derail the thread, but does anyone else find it a bit odd that the student-athletes of the teams that make it to the Final Four will have been tied up with basketball tournaments for an entire month, yet the same presidents of these schools claim that an eight-team football playoff would take football players out of class too much? Furthermore, the football playoffs would take place between the fall and spring semesters, when classes aren't even in session. How do they continue to make that argument with a straight face?

registerthis
03-13-2007, 10:39 AM
How do they continue to make that argument with a straight face?

The question is how people buy into that nonsense.

texasdave
03-13-2007, 10:39 AM
Here's another idea which I feel would garner tremendous PPV revenues. When you get down to the last at-large bid take all the coaches from the remaining bubble teams and lock them in a steel cage. The team of the coach left standing is in. :)

Caseyfan21
03-13-2007, 10:43 AM
At least for the two teams in the play in game, one of them will be able to say they won a game in the NCAA tournament. That's better than the other three 16 seeds. It's an extra game but the teams actually have a chance to win it unlike all the other 1 vs. 16 matchups.

Roy Tucker
03-13-2007, 10:55 AM
How do they continue to make that argument with a straight face?


http://money.cnn.com/1999/11/18/news/ncaa/

registerthis
03-13-2007, 10:55 AM
At least for the two teams in the play in game, one of them will be able to say they won a game in the NCAA tournament. That's better than the other three 16 seeds. It's an extra game but the teams actually have a chance to win it unlike all the other 1 vs. 16 matchups.

Small comfort to the loser.

Sea Ray
03-13-2007, 04:57 PM
Sorry, but this really bugs me. If you want to have a real play-in game, than make it against bubble teams. Let Syracuse play Arkansas if you want a play-in game so badly. Don't screw a team that wins it's conference tournament.

I've never thought about it but I like your idea. If you're going to have a play in game fine, but don't make a conference champion play in it. It should be the last two at large bids and if it was something like Ark-Syr, the TV ratings/interest level would be greater too.

Sounds like a win-win to me. I wonder why the folks in Indianapolis didn't think of this?

Matt700wlw
03-13-2007, 05:08 PM
I think this is one of the dumbest things in sports.

It is utterly ridiculous to make two teams that win their conference play an extra game. Everyone calls it the "play-in game", which clearly implies that they're not IN the tournament yet, no matter how many times CBS says its a 65 team tournament.

I know that might mean a deserving school would be left out some year, but who cares. Let the little guys have their day. For cryin' out loud, the non-BCS schools are barely elligible for at-large bids anyway.

Sorry, but this really bugs me. If you want to have a real play-in game, than make it against bubble teams. Let Syracuse play Arkansas if you want a play-in game so badly. Don't screw a team that wins it's conference tournament.


It's a no-win situation anyway. Your 2 choices are either lose tonight....or lose to Kansas.

A 16 has NEVER beaten a 1 for a reason.

Caseyfan21
03-13-2007, 06:37 PM
If you're going to have a play in game fine, but don't make a conference champion play in it. It should be the last two at large bids and if it was something like Ark-Syr, the TV ratings/interest level would be greater too.


I agree with this.

macro
03-15-2007, 08:18 AM
Jay Bilas is on Mike and Mike, and he just said that there will be expansion of the tournament in the form of more "play-in" games. He said the field won't be doubled by any means.

If I had to guess, I'd say they'll end up going with either four or eight play-in teams instead of the two they have now. That would make it either a 68- or 72-team field. We'll still have the "snub list", of course, so they're naive if they think a watered-down field will solve that problem.

On the other hand, Bilas may not know what he's talking about. As much as I detest an expanded field, I'm not sure they could have come up with anything sillier than the one play-in game they have now, though.

Caseyfan21
03-15-2007, 08:45 AM
Jay Bilas is on Mike and Mike, and he just said that there will be expansion of the tournament in the form of more "play-in" games. He said the field won't be doubled by any means.

If I had to guess, I'd say they'll end up going with either four or eight play-in teams instead of the two they have now. That would make it either a 68- or 72-team field. We'll still have the "snub list", of course, so they're naive if they think a watered-down field will solve that problem.

On the other hand, Bilas may not know what he's talking about. As much as I detest an expanded field, I'm not sure they could have come up with anything sillier than the one play-in game they have now, though.

Uh oh, time to come up with a new marketing slogan. "The Drive to 65" will be outdated.