NCAA Tournament Scores and Discussion Thread

[choida]

Only gripe i have is us play 11am Saturday

[Kel Varnsen]

North Carolinaaaa
Come get your grades up
Take your shirt off
Twist it round your hand
Take a test without a proctor

[choida]

North Carolinaaaa
Come get your grades up
Take your shirt off
Twist it round your hand
Take a test without a proctor

I like that...🔑🔑

[AndShock]

There are a lot of pages of posts since this quoted post, and I haven't read them all, so maybe this has already been answered. I'll go ahead and answer it anyway.

The at-large play-in games go to the last 4 teams in the field. This year, the last 4 at-large teams were ranked by the committee's S-Curve as 41, 42, 43, and 45, with #44 Gonzaga falling in the middle of those ranks as an auto-bid, and #46 UNI falling right behind that group. Teams 37-40 already occupied the 10 seed line, so it was easy for the committee. Teams 41-46 all received 11 seeds with the knowledge that the group would be paired down to the necessary 4 teams following the play-in games.

The committee doesn't choose play-in game participants directly. It merely ranks the teams and whoever falls at the bottom of the list has to go play in those games. Of course, there is nothing stopping individual members from deciding they wanted WSU in the play-in game as some sort of "prove your worth" scenario, but that would require them specifically looking at where the cut line was going to fall and intentionally ranking WSU just ahead of it, rather than giving WSU a traditional "honest" ranking and allowing them to fall wherever they happened to fall. It is up to you I guess to decide for yourself how much of a conspiracy theorist you want to be. Personally, given where Monmouth, Valpo, etc. fell, I think the committee members simply undervalued all mid-majors this year. I don't think there was any special conspiracy to put WSU in the play-in games specifically.

You might have answered my question but you might not have. What I'm asking is could the committee have had us #45 on the S Curve but given us a 10 seed play-in and had Syracuse #40 on the S Curve and given them a non-play-in 11 seed? I thought the committee could alter a team's seed to help with matchups and geography but I didn't know if that couldn't be applied to play-in games.

[Husker4Shockers]

I don't understand why two of the play-in games were for #11 seeds. Wouldn't it make sense - if there are play-in games at all - for all of them to be for the 16 seeds? If a team is one of the last four in, why do they have an opportunity to earn a #11 seed anyway?

[Kel Varnsen]

I don't understand why two of the play-in games were for #11 seeds. Wouldn't it make sense - if there are play-in games at all - for all of them to be for the 16 seeds? If a team is one of the last four in, why do they have an opportunity to earn a #11 seed anyway?

I disagree. For the teams who won their conference tournaments and earned automatic bids, shouldn't they be able to play in the real Big Dance? Better for two borderline at-large teams to do the play-in game than the teams who actually earned a shot at the big boys.

That said, I think the play-in stuff in general is dumb.

[Cdizzle]

I disagree. For the teams who won their conference tournaments and earned automatic bids, shouldn't they be able to play in the real Big Dance? Better for two borderline at-large teams to do the play-in game than the teams who actually earned a shot at the big boys.

That said, I think the play-in stuff in general is dumb.

I agree with all of this.

Having said that, I've started waffling a bit on the 16-seed play-in games. I am curious how those schools/conferences/fans actually feel. Playing that extra game does give them a realistic shot at an NCAA tourney win, AND a second NCAA share which has to mean a lot to those schools/conferences. I think the most fair thing is to not have them in the play-in game, unless those conferences actually prefer to play the extra game. I would be very interested in knowing how everyone involved at those programs felt about it.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I don't understand why two of the play-in games were for #11 seeds. Wouldn't it make sense - if there are play-in games at all - for all of them to be for the 16 seeds? If a team is one of the last four in, why do they have an opportunity to earn a #11 seed anyway?

Last 4 in means last 4 to get selected as an at-large. It does not mean they were the worst 4 teams in the tournament.

32 teams receive auto bids. Of the remaining schools, the best 36 are selected. Those 68 are then ranked 1-68. This year, 23 teams were ranked behind Tulsa (the last at-large selection). Those 23 got in due to winning their auto bids, but how you get in doesn't matter in terms of being ranked 1-68.

Right or wrong, good or bad, the current idea is...

The 4 worst teams (65-68) play-in as 16 v 16 in order to narrow down the field by 2. This is a penalty of sorts for being so extremely undeserving and for only winning their conference tourney after an otherwise lousy year. Teams with losing records, like Holy Cross this year, end up here.

The 4 worst teams out of the 36 selected also play-in. This somewhat greys the line drawn by the committee. Don't get selected, go to the NIT. Barely get selected, go to the play-in game. In a sense, it allows the committee to select 4 teams for the last 2 spots and then let those teams duke it out over who really gets in.

WSU was part of the last 4 selected as at-large teams, but because they were ranked ahead of a couple dozen of the auto bid teams, they were an 11 seed. Their play-in game was a penalty for barely getting selected, and was totally independent of where they fell 1-68. It was only dependent of where they fell relative to the 36 at-large bids.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

You might have answered my question but you might not have. What I'm asking is could the committee have had us #45 on the S Curve but given us a 10 seed play-in and had Syracuse #40 on the S Curve and given them a non-play-in 11 seed? I thought the committee could alter a team's seed to help with matchups and geography but I didn't know if that couldn't be applied to play-in games.

I'm honestly not 100% sure, but I think that the play-in games are selected independent of geography or matchups. Only once a first draft bracket gets set do they move teams up or down a seed line for those types of consideration. They will move a team from a 6 to a 7 if needed, but that really makes little difference as it doesn't add or subtract the number of games to be played. I don't think they will entirely move teams in and out of the play-in game just for geographical reasons. I could be wrong though and would be interested to know if anyone has a link showing anything definitively on this issue.

[AndShock]

I'm honestly not 100% sure, but I think that the play-in games are selected independent of geography or matchups. Only once a first draft bracket gets set do they move teams up or down a seed line for those types of consideration. They will move a team from a 6 to a 7 if needed, but that really makes little difference as it doesn't add or subtract the number of games to be played. I don't think they will entirely move teams in and out of the play-in game just for geographical reasons. I could be wrong though and would be interested to know if anyone has a link showing anything definitively on this issue.

What about not even changing the teams in the play-in game, just the seed? For example: #10 Wichita State/Vanderbilt vs Dayton and #11 Syracuse vs Arizona.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

What about not even changing the teams in the play-in game, just the seed? For example: #10 Wichita State/Vanderbilt vs Dayton and #11 Syracuse vs Arizona.

Ah yes, sorry. I see what you are asking. Yes, once the play-in matchups are set, that matchup can be bumped up or down a seed if needed. It does seem to have happened in 2013. One play-in game (Boise St vs LaSalle) was seeded as a pair of 13 seeds while the other (Middle Tennessee vs St. Mary's) was seeded as a pair of 11s. The committee must have had some reason to shift something around, such as a BYU receiving an auto-bid, falling in the 11-13 range, and needing to go to a site that doesn't play on Sunday.

I guess the only thing for certain is that the last 4 teams in will play-in. Their seed assignment, as a pair, appears to be flexible, within a spot up or down.

[AndShock]

Ah yes, sorry. I see what you are asking. Yes, once the play-in matchups are set, that matchup can be bumped up or down a seed if needed. It does seem to have happened in 2013. One play-in game (Boise St vs LaSalle) was seeded as a pair of 13 seeds while the other (Middle Tennessee vs St. Mary's) was seeded as a pair of 11s. The committee must have had some reason to shift something around, such as a BYU receiving an auto-bid, falling in the 11-13 range, and needing to go to a site that doesn't play on Sunday.

I guess the only thing for certain is that the last 4 teams in will play-in. Their seed assignment, as a pair, appears to be flexible, within a spot up or down.

So we did indeed get majorly screwed by not being in St. Louis. What a joke.

[Ricardo del Rio]

Pretty cool words from a grateful and tough as nails student athlete.

Quality never goes out of style.

[Husker4Shockers]

Dumb. Any chance that the folks who thought this up used to work for the IRS writing tax codes?

[Ricardo del Rio]

I think I can (at least) passively cheer for anyone from Silver Lake, KS.

Population - 1,439