quote:
Probably opening up a huge can of $h!t with this, but didnt the HBC's raise a fuss about the play-in game being from the weakest conference winners because that put them in a play-in scenerio virtually every year?

Yes. It still makes no sense though and is completely unfair to a 12 seed who has to beat another 12 seed before even getting the right to play a 5 seed. What kind of legitimate format makes being a 13 or 14 seed a better option than a 12 seed? None of these 16 seeds deserve to be in the tournament anyways (no 16 seed has ever won a tournament game) so why is it so unfair for them to have a play in game, but fair for a 12 seed with a 35 RPI to be forced to? NCAA logic.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by tween the hedges

Member since Feb 2012

20257 posts

Posted on 3/13/12 at 12:38 pm to Monticello

quote:
Yes. It still makes no sense though and is completely unfair to a 12 seed who has to beat another 12 seed before even getting the right to play a 5 seed. What kind of legitimate format makes being a 13 or 14 seed a better option than a 12 seed? None of these 16 seeds deserve to be in the tournament anyways (no 16 seed has ever won a tournament game) so why is it so unfair for them to have a play in game, but fair for a 12 seed with a 35 RPI to be forced to? NCAA logic.

It's kind of stupid, but those teams wouldn't have made the field two years ago. The play ins are the extra spots they added for 3 more at larges.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by PuntBamaPunt