|
|
Why do only two of the NCAA tournament play-in games feature #16 seeds, and the other two feature #13 teams and #11 teams? Granted, the NCAA is not known for doing things in a logical manner, but wouldn't it be simpler if all four games featured #16s?
The seeding doesn't follow the logic but the 11 and 13 seed matchups are the "last in" while the 2 16 seed play in games are the worst conference champs.Originally Posted by Brad
Stupid if you ask me. Not in favor of 68 anyway, but if they do it, let the winner of the play-in game be the 16 seed in each region.
I agree totally.
The reason the play-in games were split up was to not overly penalize conference champs from non-power conferences. If you had 8 16 seeds this year, NMSU would have likely been a 14 seed instead of a 13 seed.
Three at-large bids were added, and the current system makes the bottom four from that at-large group play for two spots in the last 64.
As long as Tech is not in a power conference, the current First Four system is better than the alternative being thrown around in this thread.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
