-
Latest Bracketology (before Kentucky game)
Has us playing in the play-in game as an 11 seed vs VCU.
Gross
Let's win some more games and get out of the play-in game
http://m.espn.com/ncb/bracketology?src=desktop
-
Play in game as an 11 seed is stupid as 17.
-
Originally Posted by
Lord McBuckethead
Play in game as an 11 seed is stupid as 17.
Better than the NIT or sitting at home.
-
Originally Posted by
Jack Lambert
Better than the NIT or sitting at home.
I think he means an 11 seed should be safely in the tournament. play in games should be 14, 15, or 16 seeds.
I get why they don't stick it to the 16 seeds, but an 11 seed play in game is stupid.
-
Originally Posted by
PMDawg
I think he means an 11 seed should be safely in the tournament. play in games should be 14, 15, or 16 seeds.
I get why they don't stick it to the 16 seeds, but an 11 seed play in game is stupid.
They do it that way because the 14, 15, 16 seeds are normally auto-qualifiers from 3rd tier conferences and aren't bubble teams. You can't have auto-qualifiers be in a play-in game, kind of defeats the concept of "auto-qualifier".
"After dealing with Ole Miss for over a year," he said, "I've learned to expect their leadership to do and say things that the leadership at other Division I schools would never consider doing and to justify their actions by reminding themselves that "We're Ole Miss.""
- Tom Mars, Esq. 4.9.18
-
I've always been disgusted by how the NCAA is chosen. Something seems inherently inaccurate about it
CAN'T PUT A SADDLE ON A MUSTANG
Quit Your Bi$&$&?!, He's Not Going to Run the Ball More
-
Originally Posted by
PMDawg
I think he means an 11 seed should be safely in the tournament. play in games should be 14, 15, or 16 seeds.
I get why they don't stick it to the 16 seeds, but an 11 seed play in game is stupid.
I totally disagree, I think they should get rid of the two 16-seed play-in games and basically make the 4 play-in games be between the last 8 at-large teams to make the Tournament. Make them true play-in games. Here are 8 teams and we can only give them 4 spots; instead of just picking which 4, let them play.
It makes no sense that 2 of the play-in games are at-large teams and the other 2 are auto-qualifiers. But get rid of the auto-qualifier play-in games and make them all at-large, not the other way around. Auto qualifiers should get in the actual Tournament.
-
Originally Posted by
smootness
I totally disagree, I think they should get rid of the two 16-seed play-in games and basically make the 4 play-in games be between the last 8 at-large teams to make the Tournament. Make them true play-in games. Here are 8 teams and we can only give them 4 spots; instead of just picking which 4, let them play.
It makes no sense that 2 of the play-in games are at-large teams and the other 2 are auto-qualifiers. But get rid of the auto-qualifier play-in games and make them all at-large, not the other way around. Auto qualifiers should get in the actual Tournament.
I agree. The four play in games should consist of the final 8 at large teams.
-
Originally Posted by
smootness
I totally disagree, I think they should get rid of the two 16-seed play-in games and basically make the 4 play-in games be between the last 8 at-large teams to make the Tournament. Make them true play-in games. Here are 8 teams and we can only give them 4 spots; instead of just picking which 4, let them play.
It makes no sense that 2 of the play-in games are at-large teams and the other 2 are auto-qualifiers. But get rid of the auto-qualifier play-in games and make them all at-large, not the other way around. Auto qualifiers should get in the actual Tournament.
Here's my problem. Make it one or the other. Honestly I could see a case for the weakest auto bids or the last at larges. But to do both like they currently do? Exceedingly inconsistent.
-
Originally Posted by
MetEdDawg
Here's my problem. Make it one or the other. Honestly I could see a case for the weakest auto bids or the last at larges. But to do both like they currently do? Exceedingly inconsistent.
Agreed
-
Senior Member
I've never been a fan of the automatic qualifier if you win your conference tournament. I think it should be the team that wins the conference regular season. I understand you want the hottest team, but to me I want to see the best overall team from each conference.
-
Yeah, let's keep winning and not worry about that nonsense. Ball's in our court.
-
Originally Posted by
BrunswickDawg
They do it that way because the 14, 15, 16 seeds are normally auto-qualifiers from 3rd tier conferences and aren't bubble teams. You can't have auto-qualifiers be in a play-in game, kind of defeats the concept of "auto-qualifier".
I get all that. Just saying 11 seed is too high imo. Honestly, I've never liked the play in games to begin with. I was totally ok with 64, and would support going back.
-
Originally Posted by
PMDawg
I get all that. Just saying 11 seed is too high imo. Honestly, I've never liked the play in games to begin with. I was totally ok with 64, and would support going back.
11 seeds are typically the lowest at-large teams. Sometimes a couple 12's but that's why the 11's are the play-in games. Basically by being in one of those play-in games, they're saying we would currently be one of the last 4 teams in.
The seeding just comes down to how many teams won their conference tournament who would not have made it as an at-large.
-
Originally Posted by
smootness
11 seeds are typically the lowest at-large teams. Sometimes a couple 12's but that's why the 11's are the play-in games. Basically by being in one of those play-in games, they're saying we would currently be one of the last 4 teams in.
The seeding just comes down to how many teams won their conference tournament who would not have made it as an at-large.
Also why I think you see so many 12 upsets. These are real good teams that are better than their seeding.
-
Originally Posted by
EdDawg
I've never been a fan of the automatic qualifier if you win your conference tournament. I think it should be the team that wins the conference regular season. I understand you want the hottest team, but to me I want to see the best overall team from each conference.
Besides, half the teams in the conference tournament don’t take the tournament seriously anyway because they’re already locks to get into the NCAA tourney, so it reduces the significance of winning the conference tournament.
-
Andy Katz has us at 11 seed (not the play in game)
-
Originally Posted by
MetEdDawg
Here's my problem. Make it one or the other. Honestly I could see a case for the weakest auto bids or the last at larges. But to do both like they currently do? Exceedingly inconsistent.
Agreed. It's weird that they kinda half assed do it both ways. Either the bottom 8 at large or bottom 8 auto qualifiers makes sense. Bottom 4 of each doesn't.
Really just go back to 64 though, the 68 number is just awkward.
-
Originally Posted by
dawgs
Agreed. It's weird that they kinda half assed do it both ways. Either the bottom 8 at large or bottom 8 auto qualifiers makes sense. Bottom 4 of each doesn't.
Really just go back to 64 though, the 68 number is just awkward.
I think it allows some recognition of the fact that some teams get in via tournaments that shouldn't. That 17-17 or 15-19 team that won the Patriot League tournament on a miracle shot shouldn't be there. They are going to get trounced against a 1 seed - so having the flexibility or putting them in a play-in game makes sense.
"After dealing with Ole Miss for over a year," he said, "I've learned to expect their leadership to do and say things that the leadership at other Division I schools would never consider doing and to justify their actions by reminding themselves that "We're Ole Miss.""
- Tom Mars, Esq. 4.9.18
-
Originally Posted by
BrunswickDawg
I think it allows some recognition of the fact that some teams get in via tournaments that shouldn't. That 17-17 or 15-19 team that won the Patriot League tournament on a miracle shot shouldn't be there. They are going to get trounced against a 1 seed - so having the flexibility or putting them in a play-in game makes sense.
Sure, but that's what's always made the NCAA tournament the NCAA tournament. Even a 25-5 team from the patriot league is extremely unlikely to do anything but get trounced but duke or Kentucky in round 1 anyway.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Disclaimer: Elitedawgs is a privately owned and operated forum that is managed by alumni of Mississippi State University. This website is in no way affiliated with the Mississippi State University, The Southeastern Conference (SEC) or the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The views and opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the post author and may not reflect the views of other members of this forum or elitedawgs.com. The interactive nature of the elitedawgs.com forums makes it impossible for elitedawgs.com to assume responsibility for any of the content posted at this site. Ideas, thoughts, suggestion, comments, opinions, advice and observations made by participants at elitedawgs.com are not endorsed by elitedawgs.com
Elitedawgs: A Mississippi State Fan Forum, Mississippi State Football, Mississippi State Basketball, Mississippi State Baseball, Mississippi State Athletics. Mississippi State message board.