Would Someone Explain the Play-In Games

I guess that I assumed that the play-in game winners would be #16 seeds. But UAB/Clemson is a #12 seed and USC/VCU is a #11 seed.

So the #11 seed and the #12 seeds in those brackets have to play an extra game that the lower seeds don't have to play. WTF. How does that make sense?

 

I was just as confused, and certainly don't know the formal answer.

But then I figured that if the committee sent all the small-school automatic qualifiers to the play-in games, just to get slaughtered by the #1 seeds later, then they'd alleviate none of the criticism of the tourney being slanted for the power conferences. But even this doesn't make much sense either.

 

It's a horse designed by a committee. Also known as a camel.

 

I can't say this is the correct answer but UTSA won the conference championship and will be in a play in game. The newscaster said it had to do with the conference rating.

 

2 play in games are against the lowest rated automatic qualifiers...the 4 16 seeds.

the other two games are against the 4 lowest at large qualifiers the 12 and 11 seeds

 

They explained it during the show. They said the first 2 play in games are between what the committee considers the worst 4 teams.

The other 2 play-in games are between the last 4 "at large" teams that were selected for the tourney.

 

There should only be 64 teams!

 

I don't really care too much, but I wish they would stop calling the original round of 64 the 2nd round now. For me the playin games are needed for those teams to qualify for the tournament of 64 and then the tournament starts.

 

Thanks for the explanations. My problem is that it doesn't seem right that a 11/12 seed has to play into the tourney.

 

why not? they're at-large teams

 

They did this to make at least one of the games each of night of wider interest. The quality of ball is going to be about the same as some of the NIT games on the Family.