PDA

View Full Version : Play-in game = Hogwash



ZagManFan
03-17-2009, 09:53 AM
Tell me how 2 Conference Champions have to play their way into the tournament? Is that NOT an automatic birth? Just chaps me to think about that I would rather see SMC and San Diego St play to get in. At least both are at-large bids and both are deserving entrants. Why not have a play-in game for each region then?

I know that if both these teams are given seeds we are then down 1 less mid-major at large, but really? And they get to count it as a tournament win.

Dumbest thing in sports besides bowl games.

PilotNut
03-17-2009, 10:06 AM
I agree 100%. If they are going to have the silly single play-in game, it should go to the "last 2" at-large teams. If you win your conference auto-bid, you should be in the field of 64. Based on this year's field, Arizona should be in the play-in game. Better yet, the play-in game shouldnt exist at all.

Sarenyon
03-17-2009, 10:06 AM
Agree!!!

I always thought that the play-in game, if you were to have it at all, should be for the final two at-large births and play into the 12 or 13 seed.

When they went 64 +1 it just did not make much sense, and it's not fair to the conference tourney champions (not conference champions, because that is not necessarily the case -another issue entirely).

former1dog
03-17-2009, 10:15 AM
I agree with everyone in this thread. Play in game = Complete BS

MedZag
03-17-2009, 10:25 AM
I've always maintained they should make it a tournament of 68 teams with play in games for the 16 of each region, populated by the last 8 at large bids. Widen that bubble a bit.

Of course, they would never do that, because many of those bubble teams are, while inconsistent, very dangerous and we couldn't have them going up against the golden boy #1 seeds and upsetting them in the first round now, could we? An interesting tweak I saw on the Pat Forde chat today would be to do all of the above, but have the play in be for the 12 seeds. I kinda like that.

I wondered, living in Portland, what the committee would have done if Oregon (who was 2-16 in conference) had won the Pac-10 tournament and gotten in. Would the committee have had the stones to put a BCS team in the play-in game, since they were clearly the worst team in the tournament? I don't think so.

Once and Future Zag
03-17-2009, 11:12 AM
My commissioner for a day ideas for the tourney

I'd have 2 suggested ways to improve the tourney.

A) Contract to 64 teams. 31 tourney champs, 31 designates - one from each conference, by that conference leadership (however they want). 2 at-larges picked by the committee (1 independent school). This makes the regular season more important - no coasting allowed, and it would be a truly exceptional year for any given team to get that last "at large" for a third team from their conference.

Every conf gets 2 teams, and while there may be some debate about whowould get the "at large" Putting the #2 team in the hands of the conference puts the people who know best about the teams in charge of picking the #2 team... so every team that didn't play themselves into the tourney gets an apples to apples comparison to get an at large with.

B) Expand to 96 teams: 31 conference champs, 31 regular season champs (or tourney second place team if 1 team is both of the first 2 categories) Tourney champs get first round bye - along with the #1 independent team (by win/loss record). teams 9-24 in each region play the first round in each region so that they form the last 32 teams - then play forward as usual.

Once again - every conf. gets 2 teams, and there's then 34 at-larges. This should pretty much catch any and all teams with a grievance. In this circumstance I'd also require that the at large have a greater than .500 record in conference play, not equal to, but better - no 9-9 teams in the field.

Either way - it reduces the "subjectivity" of the field to a greater extent than we currently have. Every team has a chance to play themselves in - either through a heightened regular season, or through reducing the effect of "one bad game" in a weaker conference.

Just my thoughts since I'm obsessive that way.

CDC84
03-17-2009, 11:26 AM
I wondered, living in Portland, what the committee would have done if Oregon (who was 2-16 in conference) had won the Pac-10 tournament and gotten in. Would the committee have had the stones to put a BCS team in the play-in game, since they were clearly the worst team in the tournament? I don't think so.

The committee is never going to put a major conference team into the play in game so long as the winner of the play in game is automatically assigned a 16 seed. Oregon may have had a bad year, but every one seed in this tournament would rather face East Tennessee State or Radford than a team with high major talent that just ripped through a major conference tournament unblemished. The Duck's record may have stunk, but like Georgia last year, any team that manages to win 4 games in 4 days in a major conference tournament has proven that whatever problems they had throughout the course of the season....well, they've been fixed to a certain degree.

I like the idea of making the play in game be a game for the final at large spot, but they would have to assign the winner a 12 seed or something....the kind of seed number that is typically assigned to the final at large teams.

It should be noted that the play in game winner gets a million dollar payout, and that the fine people of Dayton really support the game, no matter how much people make fun of it on a national level.

johnwzag
03-17-2009, 11:43 AM
Tell me how 2 Conference Champions have to play their way into the tournament? Is that NOT an automatic birth? Just chaps me to think about that I would rather see SMC and San Diego St play to get in.

Agree to a point. Yeah, I think the automatics should be in.

The play in game should have been San Diego St. AND Arizona or Creighton

If you are going purely by RPI it is Creighton. St. Mary's came up short.

According to RPI They should be in - in this order..
San Diego St. 34
Creighton 40
St. Mary's 47
Arizona 62

According to Pomeroy They should be in - in this order..
San Diego St. 34
Arizona 39
St. Mary's 61
Creighton 67

According to Sagarin They should be in - in this order..
San Diego St. 39
Arizona 43
St. Mary's 50
Creighton 55

Overall power rankings in order at http://www.teamrankings.com/ncb/rank...t=team&pan=507
Arizona 42
San Diego St. 45
St. Mary's 46
Creighton 49
Should a team get in or out based upon RPI only?

PilotNut
03-17-2009, 12:28 PM
It should be noted that the play in game winner gets a million dollar payout, and that the fine people of Dayton really support the game, no matter how much people make fun of it on a national level.

But what does the loser get? The get their spot in the 64 pulled out from underneath them. And no pay-out... I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the play-in game if CBS aired the game nationally on Tuesday night... to draw a little more attention to the "little" programs...

webspinnre
03-17-2009, 03:37 PM
I'm with those who think that the play-in should be between the last two "bubble" teams, and the winner should get the last 12/13 seed where whichever one of them would've ended up without the play in-game.