jcgary

July 12th, 2010 at 3:26 PM ^

I like the idea but it will be interesting where they come in on the bracket.  I read it that these "play in" games won't be playing the #1 seeds in the next round.  They will play as the seed the committee thinks the at large team deserved so somewhere between the 9-12 range.  I would of rather seen these teams play the #1 seed but I understand why they would do this.

Young Hero

July 12th, 2010 at 3:27 PM ^

I'm pretty sure that the last 4 at-larges will almost always be very superior to the last 4 auto-bids so the seeding could end up strangely.  Either way it is not a major change (i.e. fixing something that isn't broken) so I am happy with it.

MikeTho22

July 12th, 2010 at 3:45 PM ^

I like this honestly. The last four auto bids always just get smashed by the #1 seeds anyway, so I think it will lead to better competition and more interesting games.

hailtothevictors08

July 12th, 2010 at 3:54 PM ^

gets rid of the horrible teams .. and gives otherwise overlooked 16 seeds who might not be horrible a chance to get a game they might win ... my guess is these will be for spots on the 12 or 13 line because evry other seed will be adjusting down (15s will now be 16s, 14s will be 15s etc) and generally the last at larges are 11s or 12s ... i do remember at least one 13 (missouri maybe five yrs ago getting an at large at 13 and maybe they have been more, i doubt we will see an at large at 14 though cause that would be a slap in the face to a 3 seed)

redwings8831

July 12th, 2010 at 3:58 PM ^

So what happens if one of the auto qualifiers beats a last four at large? Do they go into the seed of what the at large would've been?

I've would've done two games with the last four qualfiers and put the winners as 16 seeds and have the other two games be between the last four at large and those winners go in as 11 or 12s.

MAgoBLUE

July 12th, 2010 at 4:09 PM ^

I went to a small D-1 school.  I follow our basketball team closely with the hope that someday I'll see them win our conference tournament and make the Big Dance.  If they were to make the field as one of the last 4 auto qualifiers it would be upsetting to see them have to do a "play-in" game against an underachieving bubble team from a big conference.  I mean, bubble controversy is part of what makes college basketball great.  Expanding the field only decreases the importance of the regular season and rewards the power conferences while diminishing the achievements of smaller schools.  Nothing was wrong with the tournament's format and I don't know why they felt the need to change it

Kilgore Trout

July 12th, 2010 at 4:17 PM ^

I read this...

"Guerrero and Shaheen said the last four at-large teams would be put on the seed line the committee decided they earned. So, this could mean that two could be considered No. 12 seeds playing for the right to play a No. 5 and two could be No. 11s vying to play a No. 6 in the second round."

to mean that the last four at larges would be playing against each other for two spots on the 12 or 11 line.  I inferred then that the four last auto bids would be playing for two 16 lines.  I could be reading it wrong though. 

MAgoBLUE

July 12th, 2010 at 4:43 PM ^

I see where my confusion was coming from.  The last 4 at larges play for a spot in the tournament as a #12 or #11 seed and the last 4 auto qualifiers play against each other for the final two #16 seeds.

It's not as bad or as strange as I originally thought it was but I still wish they didn't change the 64 team format and I think conference champions deserve to play in the real tournament and not play-in games

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

July 12th, 2010 at 4:46 PM ^

No, I think you got it right.  At first I thought what MA did too, and it made no sense.  It's tough without a bracket to look at.  But in fact a tournament of that format would be so astronomically stupid, even the NCAA wouldn't do that.

I don't really like the new format myself, I was hoping for play-ins for all four 16 seeds.  Properly promoted it would be plenty interesting.  But having just two play-ins for the at-larges takes away most of the seeding concerns that would exist if all four were for the at-larges.  I think there were enough of those that the NCAA must have recognized it couldn't go that way.