Last Four In thing...

[pick6pedro]

I think it makes plenty of sense and doesn't seem unfair for teams that barely earned their way in and have such slim chances of advancing far to have to play one more game. You have to play one more game than a 14 seed? Boo-hoo - win more games Coach Greenberg!

What I don't get is them playing in Dayton and then having to travel for a game 48 hours (or less) later. I was pretty shocked that this wasn't already the case. Have the play-in games be at the site where the advancing team will play again.

It's completely illogical for one 10 seed to have to play more games than another 10 seed, or for a 10 seed to have to play more games than an 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16 seed.....but I'm SHOCKED that you disagree.

Instead of crying about being unfair, you should strive to win more games. Problem solved. But I'm SHOCKED you're bitching.

This is the most retarded argument..."just don't be a 10 seed, then....win more games". And no one is "bitching". I am pointing out an illogical tournament setup....that is all. But I am not surprised that Mr. "I will argue if you say the sky is blue" chimed in with nonsense.

You should probably glance in a mirror every now and then.

Saying everyone controls their own destiny over a 40 game slate is retarded? Now I get it.

It's one thing to say it's unfair if you go 12-0 and don't make the NC game that is limited to 2 teams. It's another thing to say it's unfair when 1 or 2 games out of 40 allows you to move away from this huge, unfair penalty of having to play an extra game when it's highly unlikely you're 1) going anywhere in the tournament anyway and 2) questionable whether you deserve a shot at the title in the first place. But hey, it's really unfair to make these 12 loss teams play an extra game when someone who actually won their conference doesn't have to. Perfect logic.

It seems you have no qualms with making some teams play an extra game, so why the big deal that it's a major conference team when they were awarded a high seed because of the plenty-faulty system that sets it up in the first place? Let's just make the last 4 in 15/16 seeds so that everyone can be happy and receive their tournament participant ribbon! But no, because tradition lifts the power conference teams into a tournament they probably have no place in and a seeding they may or may not deserve, we should obsess over an extra game for a team seeded 3 slots higher. These aren't the top seeds, these teams are lucky to be there. Save your tears. Never change, OJ.

The liklihood that a team will "go anywhere" in the tournament should have NOTHING to do with how you set up the brackets. Giving one 10 seed a decided advantage over another 10 seed is illogical. And it doesn't matter that they "barely got in" or that they "probably won't go deep into the tourney anyway". The point is that is just doesn't make sense. 1 seeds are "rewarded" for their records and accomplishments by having the easiest path to the Final 4.....that's the whole purpose of seeding. A 2 seed has an easier path than an 8 seed, and so on and so forth. Once you make a lower seeded team play more games than a higher seeded team, you have thrown that logic out the window. Don't see how you can't grasp this.

Actually I do grasp that it's not perfectly logical - what you haven't grapsed is that 1) not everything in the tournament setup is or ever has been completely logical (if I have to explain this, just go away) and 2) it's a complaint that is mostly lost on deaf ears as it was a concession for the inclusion of more teams that wouldn't be there in the first place without the added inclusion. If those teams are deserving, one more game shouldn't mean anything, and on top of that they still have a shot to win it all. They could have made strides to improve those chances before they entered the field - but they didn't. By your logic it's totally unfair that a 4 gets protected but a 5 doesn't, so it shouldn't happen. You're always going to have to draw a line somewhere...I hope the world you live in can handle that without having to switch to Johnson & Johnson's Baby Shampoo.

Ever notice 74.8% of OJ's posts start with "nice try" or "that's reatrded"? Me neither.

[bluefishskip]

How is it possible for one of the 10 seeds to be in a play-in game? This is easy.........because they could be one of the last __ at-large teams in the field. The seeding is done on an s-curve. The last 10 seed is 40th on the S-Curve, with the others being 39/38/37 on the 10-line. So, is it fair to compare 1 10-seed to the other 3? Yes, because not all 10-seeds are equals, other than their number in front of the name on selection sunday

[pick6pedro]

How is it possible for one of the 10 seeds to be in a play-in game? This is easy.........because they could be one of the last __ at-large teams in the field. The seeding is done on an s-curve. The last 10 seed is 40th on the S-Curve, with the others being 39/38/37 on the 10-line. So, is it fair to compare 1 10-seed to the other 3? Yes, because not all 10-seeds are equals, other than their number in front of the name on selection sunday

Plus it's possible for teams to be moved up or down lines based on location/matchup problems. OJ just likes to bitch.

[Eagledom]

How is it possible for one of the 10 seeds to be in a play-in game? This is easy.........because they could be one of the last __ at-large teams in the field. The seeding is done on an s-curve. The last 10 seed is 40th on the S-Curve, with the others being 39/38/37 on the 10-line. So, is it fair to compare 1 10-seed to the other 3? Yes, because not all 10-seeds are equals, other than their number in front of the name on selection sunday

I understand that all 10 seeds are not equal. But all 10 seeds are certainly rated "more highly" than all 11-16 seeds, yet one or two of them will have to play more games than lower ranked teams....THAT is what doesn't make any sense.

[pick6pedro]

How is it possible for one of the 10 seeds to be in a play-in game? This is easy.........because they could be one of the last __ at-large teams in the field. The seeding is done on an s-curve. The last 10 seed is 40th on the S-Curve, with the others being 39/38/37 on the 10-line. So, is it fair to compare 1 10-seed to the other 3? Yes, because not all 10-seeds are equals, other than their number in front of the name on selection sunday

I understand that all 10 seeds are not equal. But all 10 seeds are certainly rated "more highly" than all 11-16 seeds, yet one or two of them will have to play more games than lower ranked teams....THAT is what doesn't make any sense.

[twballgame9]

I agree with OJ that it is not fair, and I agree with Pedro that the response is "tough shit."

[Bryn Mawr Eagle]

I'm admittedly coming late to the game on this. I had simply assumed that the additional play-in games would be populated with the lowest of the low seeded teams. After reading this thread I now understand that's not the case, but it is still unclear to me how it will work. Can anyone point me to a link or article which explains how the seeding will work this year with the play-in games?

Sorry if this has been addressed in other places.

[twballgame9]

I'm admittedly coming late to the game on this. I had simply assumed that the additional play-in games would be populated with the lowest of the low seeded teams. After reading this thread I now understand that's not the case, but it is still unclear to me how it will work. Can anyone point me to a link or article which explains how the seeding will work this year with the play-in games?

Sorry if this has been addressed in other places.

The lowest 4 autoqualifiers (teams 65-68) play the lowest 4 at-large bids. Thus, in a typical year, the last at-larges are usually seeded like 12, 13, 13, 14. So, approximately teams seeded 48, 51, 52 and 55. The objection voiced here is that the other poorly seed autobids (in the example, seeds 49, 50, 53, 54 and 56-64, despite not being as good as those last 4 at larges, don't have to play the extra game. The response is, tough shit, be a better at-large, those teams at least had to win their league.

My understanding is that the first round slots for the winners of the play-in games are determined by the higher seed (essentially the at-large). So, if the play in is a matchup of 64 and 65, they would get a one seed in the first round. If it is a matchup of teams seeded 48 and 68, the winner would draw a 5 seed, and so on.

[claver2010]

The way I understand it is:

The last 4 auto qualifiers each have a game to be the sacrificial lamb for a 1 seed.

The last 4 at large teams each play (this depends on where the bubble ends -how many 1 bid leagues become 2 big leagues, etc). For argument's sake say all seeds 13-16 were auto qualifiers so the bubble would fill the 12 seeds. So right now you would have 6 "12 seeds". The lowest 4 would be "Last 4 in" and play a play-in game.

The winners amongst those 4 12 seeds would go on to play the 2 highest ranked 5s.

I believe that's how it is.

[Bryn Mawr Eagle]

I'm admittedly coming late to the game on this. I had simply assumed that the additional play-in games would be populated with the lowest of the low seeded teams. After reading this thread I now understand that's not the case, but it is still unclear to me how it will work. Can anyone point me to a link or article which explains how the seeding will work this year with the play-in games?

Sorry if this has been addressed in other places.

The lowest 4 autoqualifiers (teams 65-68) play the lowest 4 at-large bids. Thus, in a typical year, the last at-larges are usually seeded like 12, 13, 13, 14. So, approximately teams seeded 48, 51, 52 and 55. The objection voiced here is that the other poorly seed autobids (in the example, seeds 49, 50, 53, 54 and 56-64, despite not being as good as those last 4 at larges, don't have to play the extra game. The response is, tough shit, be a better at-large, those teams at least had to win their league.

My understanding is that the first round slots for the winners of the play-in games are determined by the higher seed (essentially the at-large). So, if the play in is a matchup of 64 and 65, they would get a one seed in the first round. If it is a matchup of teams seeded 48 and 68, the winner would draw a 5 seed, and so on.

Thanks for explaining.

What a stupid arrangement. They ought to just go back to 64 teams.

[twballgame9]

I'm admittedly coming late to the game on this. I had simply assumed that the additional play-in games would be populated with the lowest of the low seeded teams. After reading this thread I now understand that's not the case, but it is still unclear to me how it will work. Can anyone point me to a link or article which explains how the seeding will work this year with the play-in games?

Sorry if this has been addressed in other places.

The lowest 4 autoqualifiers (teams 65-68) play the lowest 4 at-large bids. Thus, in a typical year, the last at-larges are usually seeded like 12, 13, 13, 14. So, approximately teams seeded 48, 51, 52 and 55. The objection voiced here is that the other poorly seed autobids (in the example, seeds 49, 50, 53, 54 and 56-64, despite not being as good as those last 4 at larges, don't have to play the extra game. The response is, tough shit, be a better at-large, those teams at least had to win their league.

My understanding is that the first round slots for the winners of the play-in games are determined by the higher seed (essentially the at-large). So, if the play in is a matchup of 64 and 65, they would get a one seed in the first round. If it is a matchup of teams seeded 48 and 68, the winner would draw a 5 seed, and so on.

Thanks for explaining.

What a stupid arrangement. They ought to just go back to 64 teams.

In retrospect, I think Claver is correct. The 4 autobids play each other for a 16 seed and the 4 at larges play each other for a 12/13/14. That is even less fair than what I thought it was.

[RedBaron67]

speaking of the tournament....this whole new play-in system just doesn't make sense. There is going to be one or two 10-12 seeds that have to theoretically play more games than the other 10-12 seeds, not to mention more games than teams seeded LOWER than them. I understand that they didn't want just 16 seeds as play in games, but the new system is completely unfair.

It makes perfect sense if you understand what enlargement of the tournament is mainly about: MONEY. The high-majors want more of their teams in to get a larger slice of the pie to cover the expenses they incur in being high-majors; the mid- and low-majors insist on keeping their automatic bids. The new system allows in a few more high-majors at the bottom of the at-large list, but relegates them to play-ins so that the automatic-bid teams won't be required to eliminate members of their own group as they were in the 65-team format. In practice, there will be some upsets, but most years there will be three or four more high-majors in the round of 64, which means a little more of the tournament pie for the high-major conferences. They still want more, of course, but the non-high-majors are the NCAA D1 majority, so the 68-team format represents the current balance point of conflicting political and economic pressures within the NCAA. Like most political compromises, it's somewhat illogical, but it makes sense in terms of the priorities of the parties involved.

On the topic of money, can somebody explain how the conferences get paid for March Madness? Do they get a set amount or do they get paid based on the number of teams that make it? Also, do the conferences get paid more when their teams advance?

To answer your question (which got buried under debates on other matters), the money setup is this: the money is divided by twice the number of games in the tournament, and each conference gets paid one unit of tournament money for each tournament game that a team from that conference appears in (but not in this year's tournament -- see below). Under this plan, both the number of conference teams in the tournament and their combined performance in the tournament figure in each conference's take, rewarding both the overall level of play in the conference and the excellence of individual teams. Each conference then decides how to distribute its tournament money among the conference members. Since the high-major conferences expect to claim the lion's share of added tournament slots, they naturally want more tournament slots = more games = more units of payment from the tournament profits = (presumably) a bigger share of the pie for the high-majors. Each unit of payment will be smaller, of course, but the high-majors expect to more than compensate for this from increased game appearances by their teams.

An interesting wrinkle in the system is that the conferences don't get paid from this year's tournament profits in proportion to this year's performance; instead, they get paid in proportion to the conference's overall performance in past tournaments stretching several years back -- maybe as much as five or six years back, my memory is fuzzy on this point. This arrangement enables them to budget for the tournament money in advance with reasonable confidence, and moderates year-to-year changes in conference revenue from the tournament.

[MilitantEagle]

speaking of the tournament....this whole new play-in system just doesn't make sense. There is going to be one or two 10-12 seeds that have to theoretically play more games than the other 10-12 seeds, not to mention more games than teams seeded LOWER than them. I understand that they didn't want just 16 seeds as play in games, but the new system is completely unfair.

It makes perfect sense if you understand what enlargement of the tournament is mainly about: MONEY. The high-majors want more of their teams in to get a larger slice of the pie to cover the expenses they incur in being high-majors; the mid- and low-majors insist on keeping their automatic bids. The new system allows in a few more high-majors at the bottom of the at-large list, but relegates them to play-ins so that the automatic-bid teams won't be required to eliminate members of their own group as they were in the 65-team format. In practice, there will be some upsets, but most years there will be three or four more high-majors in the round of 64, which means a little more of the tournament pie for the high-major conferences. They still want more, of course, but the non-high-majors are the NCAA D1 majority, so the 68-team format represents the current balance point of conflicting political and economic pressures within the NCAA. Like most political compromises, it's somewhat illogical, but it makes sense in terms of the priorities of the parties involved.

On the topic of money, can somebody explain how the conferences get paid for March Madness? Do they get a set amount or do they get paid based on the number of teams that make it? Also, do the conferences get paid more when their teams advance?

To answer your question (which got buried under debates on other matters), the money setup is this: the money is divided by twice the number of games in the tournament, and each conference gets paid one unit of tournament money for each tournament game that a team from that conference appears in (but not in this year's tournament -- see below). Under this plan, both the number of conference teams in the tournament and their combined performance in the tournament figure in each conference's take, rewarding both the overall level of play in the conference and the excellence of individual teams. Each conference then decides how to distribute its tournament money among the conference members. Since the high-major conferences expect to claim the lion's share of added tournament slots, they naturally want more tournament slots = more games = more units of payment from the tournament profits = (presumably) a bigger share of the pie for the high-majors. Each unit of payment will be smaller, of course, but the high-majors expect to more than compensate for this from increased game appearances by their teams.

An interesting wrinkle in the system is that the conferences don't get paid from this year's tournament profits in proportion to this year's performance; instead, they get paid in proportion to the conference's overall performance in past tournaments stretching several years back -- maybe as much as five or six years back, my memory is fuzzy on this point. This arrangement enables them to budget for the tournament money in advance with reasonable confidence, and moderates year-to-year changes in conference revenue from the tournament.

Thank you Mr. Baron.