Show some balls, Tournament Committee -- Duke -v- Kentucky in play-in game

Missouri State unfortunately played teams that were great last year but sucked this year (Wis.-Milwaukee, UNC Wilmington). The loss to Evansville away hurt, so did the loss to Northern Iowa at home. Look, I'm a fan of the mid-majors, but Missouri State had some chances this year to get some key wins, and after the Wisconsin game, they came up short. Sorry.

 

I think it is good for mid-major teams to play tough nonconference schedules for the name recognition. Of course, then they must play well in the tournament as well. Look at what it has done for Gonzaga, the Bulldogs might have made it even without winning the WCC tournament based on name recognition alone.
It is kind of like how Boise State continues to move up in the top 25 football rankings despite playing in a terrible conference. It's all about name recognition.

 

Get off I-75, enter parking lot, do not leave said parking lot. Enter building, complete work, re-enter parking lot, drive back onto I-75, leave Dayton in one piece.

 

And there's a brand spankin new Courtyard right across the street. Hello Marriott points!

 

TSP has a great idea. The committee should spell it out simply -- the last two teams on our at-large list are the ones in the play-in game. If they think they should be in the field of 64, fine. Win a game and be there.

No need to punish two bottom feeder conferences every year just so one mediocre team from the Pac10, SEC of Big 12 can get an 11 seed.

 

Then you give some 5 or 6 a huge advantage by playing a tired team.

 

No you don't. The play-in game winner gets the 16 seed in my system and plays a 1-seed.

One of the teams gets a win, no matter what while the other didn't belong if they couldn't win the play-in game.

 

Play-in game will be Jackson State from the SWAC (176 RPI) and Florida A&M from the MEAC (184 RPI)...as it should be.

The best thing to do, actually,is eliminate one at-large and go back to a 64-team field.

 

Missouri State is no different than Kentucky, with its early win against Louisville. After that marquee win, they might have struggled for top-notch victories, but got fat on the bottom on the conference.

Yet, no one's talking about Kentucky being a bubble team when the resume is just about the same.

 

Then a 1 seed gets a big disadvantage -- who would you rather play, a rested Weber State, North Texas, Florida A&M or Jackson State, or an Air Force/Drexel/Arkansas/ODU-type team that played Tuesday?

 

Fairest thing to do is either kill the play in or expand it so that eight teams play four games and all the 1 seeds get similarly winded teams.

 

I'm glad someone is rational and understands what I'm trying to say.