Not a fan of the current First 4 - 68 Team Format

Show me where I have EVER said there were NOT 68 teams in the tourney.

Show me where I have EVER said LIBERTY was NOT an AUTO team in the tourney. 

I already showed where you said Liberty was "not really auto".  I provided that proof posts ago, but you tried to deflect that proof.  In fact, here it is again.

Regardless, 4 teams from AUTO conferences won their conference tourney, yet are NOT auto and have to play a play-in game to reach the field of 64. 

You say it in very plain words - "are NOT auto".  How can it be any more plain than that?  It's right there in black and white.  You're saying that Liberty is NOT auto,.  You also say that the field is 64 teams, in very plain words.  You also reference in very plain words something called a play-in game.  Play-in games do not exist.  A play-in game implies that you're not in, and have to play your way into the tournament.  Teams in the first round are in the tournament, they don't have to play their way in.  Find anything in the NCAA info about the tournament that references a play-in game.  I'll bet you can't.
 

All along, you have been implying that Liberty and the other three 16's in the first round (which I'll from now on refer to as just Liberty for ease of typing) are not really in the tournament, or what you call the "field of 64".  You dance around it and want to appear all noble when you say they should be placed directly into the "field of 64", but then you say that since they're not and they have to play in a "play in game" (which actually no longer exists), they're not really in or not really auto.  That's the problem, and you just won't admit it.  The NCAA is not a field of 64, it's a field of 68.  There are no "play-in" games.  Liberty is in the tournament - automatically.  Eight teams have to play a first round game, and 60 teams get a first round bye.  I know you claim to believe that it's 68, but you just can't stop talking about 64.  It always comes back to this "field of 64" with you, over and over again.  I can't say it loudly enough - it's 68, not 64.  Once you get that through your skull, then you'll understand.

There is no Field of 64.



Poor choice of words.  Should have used Round.  Sorry 


Why is this so easy to understand in conference tourneys but so hard to accept from the NCAA tourney?


No one is questioning why it is so hard to understand.  It is NOT.  The question is WHY?  Each won a conference tourney and earned their way in.  None of the at large teams did., i.e. win a conference tourney. 

The OP started the thread and asked why should conference tourney winners not get the same treatment as the other AUTO bid teams.  Nothing more.  Again, each accomplished the same as the others.  Far cry from what the at large teams did, i.e, win a conference tourney.     


The expansion of the ncaa tourney is no different. As more teams are added, more teams will have to play 1st round games to advance. Everyone seems to be struggling with this since they were at a number of teams that required an entire additional round to be added to the tourney. As time goes on and the D1 basketball program count continues to grow, the first round will have more and more teams added to it.

I dont think anyone is struggling with the fact some teams will have to play an additional game.  It has all to do with WHAT teams will have to play an additional game. 


I think you were the one that pointed out the real seeding number point.  With the 4 16's playing, that means the 2 #1's that dont catch these 2 winners really play a true #15 in their opening game.  How is this fair?  Did they not, like the other 2 #1's, gain the right as a #1, to play a true #16?

I think you also brought up getting 2 extra nights of games.  Would it not be more fun to see the final 8 teams IN play those games rather than 4 16's?  Let their one and done be against a #1 seed, not another 16.         
     

There is no Field of 64.



Poor choice of words.  Should have used Round.  Sorry 

Now we're getting somewhere.  Yes, Liberty has to play an extra game to get to the round of 64.  And if I understand things correctly, you and I both think the auto teams should go straight into the round of 64, or in other words the second round.

But to say or even imply that Liberty is not auto,or to imply that they're not in the tourney is wrong.

"are NOT auto"

because I was making a distinction between an AUTO that had to play an additional game.  I even said they were from an AUTO conference.

You even posted it. 
 
Regardless, 4 teams from AUTO conferences won their conference tourney, yet are NOT auto and have to play a play-in game to reach the field of 64.


Hard to win an AUTO conference tourney and not be an auto team.



     All along, you have been implying that Liberty and the other three 16's in the first round (which I'll from now on refer to as just Liberty for ease of typing) are not really in the tournament,


Here you go again.  IMPLYING?  Show me where I ever said Liberty WAS NOT in the tourney.    


We can go around in circles all day long if you want to keep beating that horse cat. 

  

You continue to dodge the VANDY/MS game question.  Figures.

 

But to say or even imply that Liberty is not auto,or to imply that they're not in the tourney is wrong.


We are getting someplace.  I have always tied Liberty being an AUTO to the other 30+ AUTO bid teams, I.e. they do not get the same treatment. 

That is very different from saying they NOT an AUTO team.    

You continue to dodge the VANDY/MS game question.  Figures

I guess I must have missed that.  What about the Vandy/MS game?

"No one is questioning why it is so hard to understand.  It is NOT.  The question is WHY?  Each won a conference tourney and earned their way in.  None of the at large teams did., i.e. win a conference tourney.  "

The at-large teams earned their way in over a 30 game regular season versus a four game hot streak in the conference tourney. You cannot simply discount that. Auto-bids aren't the only way into the tourney. Everyone that gets in EARNED their way there.

Every auto bid team has the opportunity to play an impressive enough non-con schedule to remove themselves from consideration for the First Round games. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to tell that there will be at-large teams who have accomplished more than Liberty in the season, despite the fact that Liberty won their auto-bid with a well-timed four game hot streak.

I think you were the one that pointed out the real seeding number point.  With the 4 16's playing, that means the 2 #1's that dont catch these 2 winners really play a true #15 in their opening game.  How is this fair?  Did they not, like the other 2 #1's, gain the right as a #1, to play a true #16?

If they wanted to ensure that they get a "true" #16 seed, they should have been one of the first two #1 seeds. If you are the third or fourth 31 seed on the s-curve, you have not earned exact equality with all the other #1 seeds. Sorry, but there is no equal footing at the same seed line. They are stacked #1-#68 and the top gets more "consideration" than everyone below them.

I think you also brought up getting 2 extra nights of games.  Would it not be more fun to see the final 8 teams IN play those games rather than 4 16's?  Let their one and done be against a #1 seed, not another 16. 

it doesn't matter what is more entertaining, you have to remember how these changes are made and by whom. Do you really think that all the power teams are going to vote "YES" for something that only forces THEM to be vulnerable to another round? NO. It was split evenly between the lower auto bid teams and the lower at-large teams as a compromise. Like it or not, it will never change.

SORRY, forgot to mark one as a quote:


"No one is questioning why it is so hard to understand.  It is NOT.  The question is WHY?  Each won a conference tourney and earned their way in.  None of the at large teams did., i.e. win a conference tourney.  "

The at-large teams earned their way in over a 30 game regular season versus a four game hot streak in the conference tourney. You cannot simply discount that. Auto-bids aren't the only way into the tourney. Everyone that gets in EARNED their way there.

Every auto bid team has the opportunity to play an impressive enough non-con schedule to remove themselves from consideration for the First Round games. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to tell that there will be at-large teams who have accomplished more than Liberty in the season, despite the fact that Liberty won their auto-bid with a well-timed four game hot streak.

"I think you were the one that pointed out the real seeding number point.  With the 4 16's playing, that means the 2 #1's that dont catch these 2 winners really play a true #15 in their opening game.  How is this fair?  Did they not, like the other 2 #1's, gain the right as a #1, to play a true #16?

If they wanted to ensure that they get a "true" #16 seed, they should have been one of the first two #1 seeds. If you are the third or fourth 31 seed on the s-curve, you have not earned exact equality with all the other #1 seeds. Sorry, but there is no equal footing at the same seed line. They are stacked #1-#68 and the top gets more "consideration" than everyone below them.

I think you also brought up getting 2 extra nights of games.  Would it not be more fun to see the final 8 teams IN play those games rather than 4 16's?  Let their one and done be against a #1 seed, not another 16. 

it doesn't matter what is more entertaining, you have to remember how these changes are made and by whom. Do you really think that all the power teams are going to vote "YES" for something that only forces THEM to be vulnerable to another round? NO. It was split evenly between the lower auto bid teams and the lower at-large teams as a compromise. Like it or not, it will never change.

I was not in favor of it either until last year when BYU won a play in game caming back from a 25 point deficit. I know this is poor and biased reason for taking a perfect number of 64 teams and turning it into an albatros of 68 teams but I am biased towards my team and make no excuses for it. By the way I am not for it this year as BYU is well out of it. 

The at-large teams earned their way in over a 30 game regular season versus a four game hot streak in the conference tourney. You cannot simply discount that. Auto-bids aren't the only way into the tourney. Everyone that gets in EARNED their way there. 

Never questioned that the teams EARNED their way in.  Just making the point that unlike the at large teams, the AUTO teams won their tourney.


Every auto bid team has the opportunity to play an impressive enough non-con schedule to remove themselves from consideration for the First Round games. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to tell that there will be at-large teams who have accomplished more than Liberty in the season, despite the fact that Liberty won their auto-bid with a well-timed four game hot streak. 
 

Every team, not just auto bid teams, has that opportunity, i.e. the last 4 in that also play a 1st round game.  It doesn't take a brain surgeon to know that MANY, if not ALL the teams that make the tourney this year accomplished more than Liberty in the "SEASON", but one thing Liberty accomplished that NONE of the at large teams is that they were able to win their conference tourney.  

The question is does that count for anything?  For 4 of those AUTO bid winners it means a 1st round game.  It is a given that if ANY of those 4 had lost in their conference tourney, they would be NOT be in the NCAA tourney.  A case could be made that winning their conference tourney should give them the same PRIZE, for lack of a better term, that the other AUTO bid teams earned, a pass into the round of 64.

Face it, the last 8 teams in the tourney are the LAST teams in.  None accomplished as much in their respective conference tourney as Liberty and the other 3 did in their conference tourney.  Does that mean Liberty accomplished more in the regular season?  A 1st round game and a 16 seed says NOT.   

If they wanted to ensure that they get a "true" #16 seed, they should have been one of the first two #1 seeds. If you are the third or fourth 31 seed on the s-curve, you have not earned exact equality with all the other #1 seeds. Sorry, but there is no equal footing at the same seed line. They are stacked #1-#68 and the top gets more "consideration" than everyone below them. 


Tell us something we don't know.  You are sidestepping the issue.  The simple fact is that each of the 31 is an AUTO bid team. Everyone knows the mechanics of how the teams are ranked.  The question has all to do with the fact that 2 #1's, when it is all said and done, get 2 #15's.  Why not give ALL the #1's a TRUE 16 and elevate the 2 16's that get a bye to the Round of 64 to #15.  That way ALL the #1's get a true #16, not just the top 2 overall seeds.


it doesn't matter what is more entertaining, you have to remember how these changes are made and by whom. Do you really think that all the power teams are going to vote "YES" for something that only forces THEM to be vulnerable to another round? NO. It was split evenly between the lower auto bid teams and the lower at-large teams as a compromise. Like it or not, it will never change.


Of course it doesn't matter if it is more entertaining.  I asked if it would be more fun to watch the last eight teams in play on those 2 nights? The power teams don't have a say in the matter, unless you know something I don't know.  The simple matter is expanding the filed to 68 teams means when it is all said and done, the power conferences get 4 more teams in.  By the way the bracket has been upgraded 4 of the chump conferences that exit on day 1 or 2 have to play in a Round 1 game.  

It benefits the big name conferences even if the compromise means 4 of their teams have to play a play-in game.  Face it, one can make the case that NONE of those teams would have made a 64 team tourney.  When it is all said and done, 4 of those teams make the big dance and 2 of the #16's taste a win in the play-in games, when NONE before the expansion had ever experienced that. 

This conversation is officially going nowhere.

Here you go again.  IMPLYING?  Show me where I ever said Liberty WAS NOT in the tourney.    


We can go around in circles all day long if you want to keep beating that horse cat. 

  

You continue to dodge the VANDY/MS game question.  Figures.

Go back and read your 3rd post on this thread, from 10:53 AM on March 12.  I did, and it's enlightening.  It was your first response to me.  I had just stated that I felt Liberty was more deserving than at large teams (implying bubble teams), because they actually won their way into the tournament and the at large/bubble teams would have to be gifted a spot by the committee.  Here are four quotes from your first response to me (bolded) and how I will respond now... 

Liberty has NOT won their way in.  Far from it.  False, they did win their way in.

That however is the rub, cat.  Liberty DID NOT win their way in.  False, they did win their way in.

On one hand they won their conference tourney and earn the AUTO bid, yet that is NOT good enough.  They have to go out and do it all over again in a play-in game.  There are no "play in" games.  There are 68 teams in the tournament, with 8 teams playing in the first round.

Liberty won their conference tourney.  Are they part of the 64 team field?  Not yet.  You certainly are implying here that Liberty is not in the tournament field, but it's not a 64 team field like you seem to be saying, it's 68 - 41 auto bids and 37 at large.

In that post, you sure seem to be claiming that Liberty did not win their way into the tournament and that the tournament is 64 teams.  How can I think otherwise when twice you say they did not win their way in, you then say their auto bid is not good enough and then say they're not in the 64 team field, even though it's a 68 team tournament?

Is there something "magical" about having to play an extra round?  If that's the case, most teams must not really play in their conference tournaments.  Most conferences have at least 10 teams (some 12, 14 or 16).  Some teams get byes, and some even get double byes.  However, every team that plays in the conference tournament is, by definition, in that conference tournament.  Some conferences used to exclude teams at the bottom of the standings to make brackets more even, but I don't think there are any conferences that do that any longer.  And Liberty, by virtue of securing the auto bid from its conference, is fully in the NCAA tournament, regardless of whether they have to play in first round or are seeded directly into the second round.  The NCAA does not consider the Tuesday/Wednesday games to be "play-in" games, they consider them to be first round games.

As for the Vandy/MS game, somewhere along the line I missed what you asked.  I even posted (just a few posts above) that I missed it and essentially requested that you ask your question again so I can give you the answer you so richly deserve. 

My problem is how do two of the first four winners end up in the Round of 64 as 12 seeds?

Poor tree.  Two guys constantly pissing on it for reasons they only know why.  Gentlemen, you are arguing for the sake of arguing and you know it.  Let's call it what it is and that is this has become a pissng contest.  Please, leave the tree alone.

signed---tree hugger 

Too bad this contest isn't real and too bad you're not the tree.

"My problem is how do two of the first four winners end up in the Round of 64 as 12 seeds? "

Right now, the Last Four In are Kentucky, Virginia, LaSalle and Tennessee. If you take the Field of 68 and ranked them from #1-#68 (as the committee does) do you think that the teams listed in the Last Four In would be in the Bottom 8? NO. They get slotted to the seed that they would receive.

Apologies, Buck, but if I offend it is only because this thread reads ridiculously as the two of you going back and forth on semantics and nomenclature is pretty damn sad.  You are arguing to argue.  Might as well be saying, "I know you are but what am I?".  

Have at it.  Just trying to help you see it for yourself as you seem oblivious to how it reads. Just thought you might want to sound a little more intelligent in your next attmept at arguing a side, because this one, well...it speaks for itself.  Good luck, enjoy your weekend.  Won't get sucked into the stupidity beyond what I have already allowed.  Cheers!  (And yes, that is what you call passive-aggressive.  

---

)

Hey VT fan you were just proven wrong. You said that the sites were predetermined for each pod. Well you only disclosed the 4 seeds in each region but it was enough. You said:

Midwest: San Jose (Actual: San Jose, but I said San Jose was going to 4 seeds anyways)
South: San Jose (Actual: Auburn Hills.... with Michigan. This alone proves my point that the teams make the location, and it simply being different proves you wrong)
East: Salt Lake (Actual: San Jose. Wrong)
West: Kansas City (Actual: Kansas City. Correct but you are laready wrong plus Kansas State is here)

You also said the first 4 would be in the East and West. Well they were in the Midwest and West!


Next time do your research properly and listen to facts instead of continuing to spew out nonsence when you are proven wrong and tell us to research stuff that doesn't exist.