NCAA "First Four" expansion

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaa...hampionships/tourney+to+begin+with+first+four

The NCAA has announced the details - sort of - of the new 68 team field for March.

The "First Four" as the NCAA happily names it will occur prior to the Thurs-Sunday games. Two games will feature seeds 65-68, with the winners to face two awaiting #1 seeds.
The other two games are comprised of the last four of the now 37 at large teams in (the NCAA gleefully says this will make a historic announcement of those last four teams in) whose winners will be placed anywhere from an 8-9 game to a 11 seed or 12 seed. Essentially, you will have two 10 seeds playing, and two 12 seeds in the other at large bracket or pod.

The games can be played at one site or a combination of sites yet to be determined.

In order to avoid the "play-in" monniker, the NCAA has deemed the above to be the tourney's first round. The Thurs-Fri games are the second round, while Sat-Sunday's titanic struggles will be known as the third round.

Got that? :tongue3:

Your reaction?

 

I don't usually go first, but here goes:

1. I'm not wild about this, though this was expected. I felt a better procedure would be to call the first round the opening round, and all four games could include the at large "bubble" teams. Honestly, how many people are going to watch Arkansas-Pine Bluff play Jacksonville State? Let the bottom four seeds keep their perch on line 16. At least someone would be watching as they get their brains beat in.

2. Calling this "first four" is lame. It's an opening round, not a first round. We all know it. Calling it something else is just weird.

3. This now ensures that a #1 has never lost in the first round. Oh well.
I know, they can still lose their first game, but it's not the same. Why? Well......

4. ......Essentially what has happened is that 63 teams have been given first round byes. That includes East TN State or Monmouth, who happened to be seeded 62 or 63.

Honestly, I'm starting to think the NCAA can't do anything right. But how right was this to start with? I said all along I was in favor of a sensible expansion, but that I'd rather see retraction than mess this up. It just seems bizarre on some level. I applaud the NCAA for at least giving its institutions what it wants, but much like the BCS in football, it does so in a way that creates scratching heads rather than smiling faces.

Just my opinion.

 

I don't disagree that the play-in games are dumb (and these are just play in games). However, the whole regular season should count, not just a handful here or there. I don't mind a large tourney field. Lots of people who hold the field of 65 and now 68 so sacrosanct jumped up and down and prophesied about the ruination of the tourney when expansion happened to 48, then to 64, then to 65. I don't think this will kill it, but I do think it's a poorly constructed model.

And the "just win the conference" idea presupposes that the conf champ from ABC conference is automatically better than the runner up from another conference. Dangerous (and often faulty) assumption.