Should Automatic Bids be playing the "Play-in" Game?

[sidelinedoc]

Morehead State and Alabama State both won their conference tournaments and the automatic bids that come with it. Why then, should they be playing in the "play-in" game? Two of the 34 at-large berths should be battling it out in this game. I personally think it is very unfair to punish these two teams just because they are from the smaller and weaker conferences. What say you?

[Getslow]

I have long agreed with you. This game should be between Wisconsin and Arizona or Dayton or something and they should play it for a 12 seed or whatever the last spot is. The two final at large teams bettle for the last spot. It would also be a lot more interesting than a game to decide who gets to get their butt kicked by the #1 overall.

[Clyde]

The automatic bids only get you a chance to compete and to get your name in the hopper. From there, the committee's job is to put together the best tournament they can.

 

So, to answer your question, yes.

[gchs_uk9]

They should eliminate an at-large berth, go back to 64 teams to begin with, and there will be no need for a play-in game.

 

But I'd say the chances are better that the field will expand to 68 teams and there will be four play-in games to determine #16 seeds. I think that will happen in the next five years.

[bugatti]

I have never understood the idea behind the "play-in game". They rank the teams 1-65. If they are hell-bent on keeping this game, it seems like the lowest of the 65 teams, that received an automatic bid, could play the first team out. This year, I assume it would be St. Mary's/Arizona for the right to play Utah.

[westsider]

If you change the "play-in" game to include at-large teams, you are penalizing the overall #1 seed by giving them a much tougher first-round opponent than the other #1 seeds are facing.

 

The "play-in" game is a gimmick, but probably one that is here to stay.

[bigblueinsanity]

If you change the "play-in" game to include at-large teams, you are penalizing the overall #1 seed by giving them a much tougher first-round opponent than the other #1 seeds are facing.

 

The "play-in" game is a gimmick, but probably one that is here to stay.

 

:thumb:

[kypride]

They are being punished because they are smaller and weaker. Louisville is being rewarded because they are bigger and stronger. This is how it should be.

[AHSPanther23]

MSU should not be the one to play in the play in game imo.

[Clyde]

MSU should not be the one to play in the play in game imo.

 

Who should be in it?

[spe690]

Automatic bids shouldn't have the play in game. I am in favor of having 4 play in games, 1 in each region, with bubble teams involved.

[AHSPanther23]

Who should be in it?

 

Chattanooga

[Wireman]

Who should be in it?

 

It should be Chattanooga, IMO.

[Wireman]

I personally think they should play the NIT and allow the winner to have a spot in the NCAA tourney. That would give the NIT a good purpose and make for some very interesting games.

[AHSPanther23]

I personally think they should play the NIT and allow the winner to have a spot in the NCAA tourney. That would give the NIT a good purpose and make for some very interesting games.

 

That is not really a bad idea.