• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

NCAA Basketball - 2011

Does anyone else have trouble calling it the second round or am I the only cranky old guy here?

No. I'm calling the extra games the "play-in" round, and the round of 64 "first round."

I really feel like teams like USC (as much as I hate to say it), UAB, Clemson, and VCU are getting a bad deal. If you are calling 4 teams "the last 4 in" they should be playing for a 16 seed, not a 11 or 12. It's ridiculous to me to say that, "if you win, you're worth an 11 seed; if not, even though you were better than 4 groups of 12-16 seeds, you don't get in."

The 4 play-in games, to me, should've been for 16 seed spots.
 
No. I'm calling the extra games the "play-in" round, and the round of 64 "first round."

I really feel like teams like USC (as much as I hate to see it), UAB, Clemson, and VCU. If you are calling 4 teams "the last 4 in" they should be playing for a 16 seed, not a 11 or 12. It's ridiculous to me to say that, "if you win, you're worth an 11 seed; if not, even though you were better than 4 groups of 12-16 seeds, you don't get in."

The 4 play-in games, to me, should've been for 16 seed spots.

I agree. That seems really odd.
 
This is all news to me. I thought there was one play-in game and it was for a 16 seed. Must be new this year.

The NCAA found a way to squeeze a few more bucks out of the tournament. :(

-Mike

They expanded to 68 teams. I thought that they were merely adding 3 more play-in games for 16 seeds (one per region), but that wasn't the way it worked out.

Some of the play-in games are for 16's, one is for a 12, and one an 11 (I think). To me, that just seems stupid; but what do I know, I'm not on the selection committee.
 
I actually like the new 11/12 seed play-in games. :hiding:

The theory is that the bubble at-large teams from the major and mid-major conferences are probably stronger than the champions from the small conferences that typically fill in the 13-16 seeds. This year the lowest at-large team that is already in the tournament is Richmond - the third Atlantic 12 team in the tournament. The play-in teams are either the 2 or 3 team from a mid-major (VCU and UAB) or the 4th team from a major (USC and Clemson).
 
I actually like the new 11/12 seed play-in games. :hiding:

The theory is that the bubble at-large teams from the major and mid-major conferences are probably stronger than the champions from the small conferences that typically fill in the 13-16 seeds. This year the lowest at-large team that is already in the tournament is Richmond - the third Atlantic 12 team in the tournament. The play-in teams are either the 2 or 3 team from a mid-major (VCU and UAB) or the 4th team from a major (USC and Clemson).

You're forgetting the other 2 play-in games for 16 seeds.
 
Well the first games are over and who would have thought that the 16 play-in game would be more interesting than the 11?

Looks like a lot of people are calling for the upset of WV by Clemson. Being a Carolina fan, I can tell you that they looked good the latter half of this year. Having said that, I still think WV will get the W.
 
Still time to join in.

I added a bracket that simply mirrored the Tournament Selection Committee so we can see how we do against the experts. Other than the 8-9 seeds the Committee has an excellent record.

I watched a bit of the Clemson - UAB game. Clemson really attacked the boards - that kind of effort will win you a game more often than not.

It looks like the Committee was right about UAB not having enough quality wins and not playing well at the end to deserve automatic entry. Even though the ACC was not as stacked this year as the Big East, there are few, if any, easy regular season games, so Clemson is battle-tested and could take out WV.