Close, but not there, yet
Last year, I blogged about my thoughts on the NCAA basketball tournament.
It seems that after the tournament last year, the NCAA decided to add three more teams to the mix, and call the resulting games the "First Four."
This year, the Selection Committee did not completely select small conference champions for the four play-in games. That happened for two of the first round games. The other two games are to be played by four at-large bids.
According to this link, VCU and USC will play to see who earns the 11-seed and who will, therefore, play Georgetown in the newly-renamed "Second Round." Similarly, UAB and Clemson will face each other to determine the 12-seed spot that will play West Virginia in the Second Round.
In a demeaning move, Arkansas-Little Rock will be forced to play North Carolina-Asheville. The "winner" will get to be trounced against a powerful Pittsburgh team. In the same fashion, Texax-San Antonio and Alabama State will have the same situation, with the winner getting to test themselves against an equally deadly foe in Ohio State.
As I said last year, Conference Champions should be seeded no lower than 12-seeds. They won their respective championships - something that cannot be said for at-large bids. All "play-in" games of the first round, in the current format or any similar format, should be played by at-large bids who did not win their way into the tournament.
Now, if everybody was playing in the same round, there might be a bit more of an argument for placing smaller schools up against the 1-seeds. But not much, in my opinion.
At the end of the day, the best school would still win. But along the way, there would be more meaningful games.
It seems that after the tournament last year, the NCAA decided to add three more teams to the mix, and call the resulting games the "First Four."
This year, the Selection Committee did not completely select small conference champions for the four play-in games. That happened for two of the first round games. The other two games are to be played by four at-large bids.
According to this link, VCU and USC will play to see who earns the 11-seed and who will, therefore, play Georgetown in the newly-renamed "Second Round." Similarly, UAB and Clemson will face each other to determine the 12-seed spot that will play West Virginia in the Second Round.
In a demeaning move, Arkansas-Little Rock will be forced to play North Carolina-Asheville. The "winner" will get to be trounced against a powerful Pittsburgh team. In the same fashion, Texax-San Antonio and Alabama State will have the same situation, with the winner getting to test themselves against an equally deadly foe in Ohio State.
As I said last year, Conference Champions should be seeded no lower than 12-seeds. They won their respective championships - something that cannot be said for at-large bids. All "play-in" games of the first round, in the current format or any similar format, should be played by at-large bids who did not win their way into the tournament.
Now, if everybody was playing in the same round, there might be a bit more of an argument for placing smaller schools up against the 1-seeds. But not much, in my opinion.
At the end of the day, the best school would still win. But along the way, there would be more meaningful games.
Comments
Post a Comment
Your comment will be displayed after approval.
Approval depends on what you say and how you say it.