ESPN TOurnament Challenge

[Adam]

Still doesn't make sense. Bringing in 4 new teams, you could still bump seeding to the point where your play-in teams are all playing for a 16 seed. Making an 11 play an extra game while not doing it to a 16 seems to defeat the purpose of seeding; at least partially.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Still doesn't make sense. Bringing in 4 new teams, you could still bump seeding to the point where your play-in teams are all playing for a 16 seed. Making an 11 play an extra game while not doing it to a 16 seems to defeat the purpose of seeding; at least partially.

I thought the point was to give the 1 seed a cupcake.

I think they should have had the remaining 5 Big East teams play each other for a spot or two. Not enough Big East in the dance.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Still doesn't make sense. Bringing in 4 new teams, you could still bump seeding to the point where your play-in teams are all playing for a 16 seed. Making an 11 play an extra game while not doing it to a 16 seems to defeat the purpose of seeding; at least partially.

Now that I see the braket, I see what they did. 2 of the first 4 games (Tues. and Wed.) have 2 #16's playing each other, with the winners still being a #16, playing a #1 on Thurs. or Fri. 2 #11's play each other, then move into the #6 vs. #11 game, and 2 #12's play each other, with the winner moving into the #5 vs. #12 game.

So it's not like a #16 becomes a # 11 if they win. The seeds still carry over correctly into the Thurs. and Fri. games.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Now that I see the braket, I see what they did. 2 of the first 4 games (Tues. and Wed.) have 2 #16's playing each other, with the winners still being a #16, playing a #1 on Thurs. or Fri. 2 #11's play each other, then move into the #6 vs. #11 game, and 2 #12's play each other, with the winner moving into the #5 vs. #12 game.

So it's not like a #16 becomes a # 11 if they win. The seeds still carry over correctly into the Thurs. and Fri. games.

So, again, you've got two 11s and two 12s who have to play an extra game while two 16s do not. Still stupid.

[jbduke]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So, again, you've got two 11s and two 12s who have to play an extra game while two 16s do not. Still stupid.

Holding my nose, I'd say it's the second-most fair way to organize a 68-team tournament. The committee already recognized (however tacitly) that it was relegating two teams each year to second-class citizenship by sending them to Dayton and pretending it was a regular tournament game. For them to take the bottom eight teams in the field and tell them they all had to play way their into the regular 64-team field would have resulted in PR headaches that weren't worth it. So they took a hybrid approach: the bottom four teams overall play pre-lim games, as well as the last four at-larges.

I wish all of the "opening round" games would involve the last eight at-larges, all of whom would be playing for twelve-seeds in the bracket. Why should teams who won their conference tournaments--in other words teams that actually WON their way into the national tournament--have to win another game just so that they can be granted full participation rights?

This has been another episode of "Logistics and PR are tough work when your organization prostitutes itself."

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by jbduke

Why should teams who won their conference tournaments--in other words teams that actually WON their way into the national tournament--have to win another game just so that they can be granted full participation rights?

The strength of some conferences and their rights to an automatic bid has been a question for many years.

[jbduke]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The strength of some conferences and their rights to an automatic bid has been a question for many years.

Really? I don't think I've ever heard anyone seriously propose that the lower-tier conferences shouldn't be guaranteed at least one representative in the tournament.

Link(s)?

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So, again, you've got two 11s and two 12s who have to play an extra game while two 16s do not. Still stupid.

I can almost guarantee that no 16s will be playing any extra games.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

I can almost guarantee that no 16s will be playing any extra games.

IIRC, no 16 has ever beat a 1-seed in the tourney.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

I can almost guarantee that no 16s will be playing any extra games.

Wanna bet?

Actually, there are 6 #16-seed teams in the tournament. 4 of them will play in 2 different 1st round games, with the winners playing the #1 seeds in their brackets. The final 2 #16-seeds will skip the opening round and play the other 2 #1 seeds first.

So, 2 #16-seed teams are guaranteed to win and advance to the next round.

[rockyroad]

So why not just let those last "at-large" teams and the lowest seeded teams all into the tournament, and give the 4 #1 seeds a bye in the first round, and they don't have to play until Saturday or Sunday?

[jbduke]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So why not just let those last "at-large" teams and the lowest seeded teams all into the tournament, and give the 4 #1 seeds a bye in the first round, and they don't have to play until Saturday or Sunday?

Because the math/bracket doesn't work out that way. If you give the top four teams a bye, then the other sixty-four teams play each other and you're left with thirty-six teams.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Wanna bet?

Actually, there are 6 #16-seed teams in the tournament. 4 of them will play in 2 different 1st round games, with the winners playing the #1 seeds in their brackets. The final 2 #16-seeds will skip the opening round and play the other 2 #1 seeds first.

So, 2 #16-seed teams are guaranteed to win and advance to the next round.

They are not a 16 seed until they win.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

They are not a 16 seed until they win.

Arithmatic-wise, you're probably right.

But on the bracket shown at CBSSports.com, the game tomorrow between NC-Ashville and AR-Little Rock shows them both as #16 seeds, and the game Wed. between TX-San Antonio and Alabama St. show them both as #16 seeds.

So, for the field of 68, there are actually 6 #16's, 5 #12's, 5 #11's, and 4 of every other seed. It would make sense to me, except even Mr. Einstein has a puzzled look on his face...

[jbduke]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So, again, you've got two 11s and two 12s who have to play an extra game while two 16s do not. Still stupid.

Though I didn't quite realize it earlier, this is an interesting framing problem. Logically, the following two descriptions of the opening round are equally valid:

1) Two 11s and two 12's have to play an extra game while two 16's do not.
and
2) Two 11s and two 12's are allowed to play at least one game in this year's tournament, whereas under the last system those same four teams would have been left out completely.

Each framing involves a value judgment. The first construction assumes that, without exception, lower-seeded teams should have to work harder than higher-seeded teams to win the tournament.

The second assumes that the last four at-large teams should recognize that they have no real chance of actually winning the tournament and look at their opening game as an opportunity rather than an extra burden that most lower-seeded teams don't face.