NCAA Tournament Conference Records

[IWB]

No matter how many games the Big East wins, they will automatically end up X Wins and 6 losses someone wins it all. The loss column always looks bad, but that also says how many teams you have in.

Well, St. John's & Providence haven't even taken the floor yet and the Big East is already at 10 tourney credits. Yep - that is about $2.5 million, not a bad start.

As it stands as after Day 1....



<tbody>
Conference

First 4

Day 1

Day 2
Overall


Big East

4-0

4-0


ACC

3-0

3-0


Pac 12

3-0

3-0


C-USA

1-0

1-0


Northeast
1-0


1-0


Sun Belt

1-0

1-0


SEC
1-0
2-2

3-2


AAC

1-1

1-1


A 10
1-0
0-1

1-1


Big 10

1-1

1-1


MEAC
1-0
0-1

1-1


Atlantic Sun
0-1


0-1


Big Sky

0-1

0-1


Colonial

0-1

0-1


Ivy

0-1

0-1


MAAC
0-1


0-1


Mtn West

0-1


0-1


Patriot

0-1

0-1


Southland

0-1

0-1


Southern

0-1

0-1


SWAC

0-1

0-1


West Coast
0-1


0-1


Big XII

0-3

0-3

</tbody>

[Litehouse]

Does winning the play-in games count for extra units?

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

I believe so. It is based on the number of games you appear in, and the play in games are still NCAA games.

[IWB]

Yes - each game played = 1 credit, includes play in games.

[MU/Panther]

"First "Four" not play in games. If the field is a 68 team field, how is it a play in game. This isn't the Rockies vs Padres to see who will get the final wild card birth. It's another lazy national media saying that doesn't cover basketball untill March.

You win in the First Four, it goes in the record books as a ncaa tourament win and 1.5 million.

[Goose85]

"First "Four" not play in games.

Aren't they still considered 'round 1' games?

[MU/Panther]

Aren't they still considered 'round 1' games?
I think next year the 2nd round (round of 64) will go back to being called the 1st round.

The first four was called opening round, but now the ncaa calls it "First Four"

[IWB]

To me they are play in games. I have been to the NCAA tournament in several different cities. (Milwaukee several times, Chicago Rosemont, Chicago United Center, Indianapolis twice, Minneapolis, Louisville, San Diego, Phoenix, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Memphis, New Orleans) It is amazing, it is electric. You walk in and the lights seem brighter, the courts are new, the colors are bright and vivid - it is amazing. Everyone is there to see the action. Various team's fans as well as general fans rally for the underdog. Look at last night when Georgia State hit the shot - the sections behind the hoop were going nuts - and those weren't Georgia State fans, those were Kentucky fans. It is an amazing experience to be at the games whether your team is playing or not. Souvenirs all have 8 teams listed on them. If you are Hampton - your name is on the shirts and cups right next to Kentucky, Maryland, Purdue, Cincinnati, West Virginia - you have hit the big time and you know it. I remember Belmont coming out of the tunnel right next to me in San Diego one year. Those guys were looking around the place in complete awe of their surroundings. It all starts on Thursday with 16 games, then Friday with 16 games. Its awesome.

Can any of the same be said about Dayton with the exception of the new court? No, so its a play in game.

[MU/Panther]

I agree Dayton sucks and it's not the same. It's a joke 11 or 12 seeds need 7 wins to win a national title when a 13 seeds only needs 6. I hated for Marquette when they played BYU, that Marquette lost two days in scouting their opponents because they didn't know who it would be. I wish it would just go back to 64 teams, but it's not a play in when it's a 68 team field and those are the schools. The term is a slap in the face.

[IWB]

I agree, that is why it should be the last four in and the last four out. Make them play their way in.

[MU/Panther]

PS, Georgia State's win was in Jacksonville, not in Louisville, KY., but I get your point about the neutral site folks cheering for the lower seeded team. Something that can't happen when 16 plays 16 and 11 plays 11 seed.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

I wonder if all the talk about Dayton will lead to the tournament expanding. I could easily see them going to 72 and having two play-in sites.

While I'm sure most people would object (we never like expansion) I actually think if handled correctly it could be very cool. As long as they don't just add the next four at-large teams. Instead, give the four new bids to the top conference champions that were left out. This year I think it would be nice to see teams like Murray State, Central Michigan, UC Davis, Louisiana Tech, William & Mary, and South Dakota State having another avenue for getting into the Big Dance. It would allow the NCAAs to expand the number of games, advertising revenue, and ticket sales while also having two venues so the Dayton issue wouldn't be revisited. Put them in the 13-14 range and have them play conference champs that got in through tournaments.

[MU/Panther]

I agree, that is why it should be the last four in and the last four out. Make them play their way in.
Of the at large pool? I would like that.

I don't like 16 seeds playing each other. Manhattan and North Florida never got their shot versus the 1 seed.

[MU/Panther]

1st Thursday of the tournament was the highest in the history. 10% higher than last year.

[Goose85]

I wonder if all the talk about Dayton will lead to the tournament expanding. I could easily see them going to 72 and having two play-in sites.

While I'm sure most people would object (we never like expansion) I actually think if handled correctly it could be very cool. As long as they don't just add the next four at-large teams. Instead, give the four new bids to the top conference champions that were left out. This year I think it would be nice to see teams like Murray State, Central Michigan, UC Davis, Louisiana Tech, William & Mary, and South Dakota State having another avenue for getting into the Big Dance. It would allow the NCAAs to expand the number of games, advertising revenue, and ticket sales while also having two venues so the Dayton issue wouldn't be revisited. Put them in the 13-14 range and have them play conference champs that got in through tournaments.

I'm with IWB on last 4 in v. first 4 out. The small conference champ should get their day in the spotlight. That way the last four out have the chance to prove the committee wrong.

I like your idea too Brewcity77 - Give the conference champs who didn't win their league tourney a chance at another shot. Even expand to 10 or even 12 teams (last 5 or six in). Losers of the games are then awarded one or two seeds in the NIT.

I like the little guys getting their shot. 16 seeds shouldn't have to play in, they already earned their way in. Let the 7th place Big 10 team on the bubble play the 8th place ACC team to earn the spot, not two teams that won their league. For the small schools, this is their one chance to get the bright lights as IWB said.

[TheSultan]

I wonder if all the talk about Dayton will lead to the tournament expanding. I could easily see them going to 72 and having two play-in sites.

While I'm sure most people would object (we never like expansion) I actually think if handled correctly it could be very cool. As long as they don't just add the next four at-large teams. Instead, give the four new bids to the top conference champions that were left out. This year I think it would be nice to see teams like Murray State, Central Michigan, UC Davis, Louisiana Tech, William & Mary, and South Dakota State having another avenue for getting into the Big Dance. It would allow the NCAAs to expand the number of games, advertising revenue, and ticket sales while also having two venues so the Dayton issue wouldn't be revisited. Put them in the 13-14 range and have them play conference champs that got in through tournaments.



How about 8 games (16 teams) where any regular season champ that doesn't win their tournament plays an at-large team. It would be kind of wacky for seeding so it may not work.

You could play the games at two sites, Tuesday and Wednesday, on two different channels.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

One thing I really like about the 16-seed play-in games is something Seth Davis was talking about today regarding Coastal Carolina. He was saying that because of the First Four games, you effectively have two teams that would have been 15 seeds playing against 1-seeds. We all want to see that 16/1 upset at some point (cough, 8:20 tonight, cough) and I like the idea of even those games being closer. Last year, if you discount the Wichita State blowout, the average margin of victory for 1-seeds was 10.7 points. In 2013, two games were decided by single-digits (Gonzaga by 6, Kansas by 7), and in 2012 there was another 7-point game and none decided by 20 or more.

I would like to keep the two 16-seed play-in games, but would love to add regular season conference champs to the other games. Make the at-large teams play non-tourney winners? Could lead to decent ratings too since you'll have some big schools involved in those games.

[Halo]

Can Coastal Carolina keep it close at all tonight vs. the Badgers?

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Can Coastal Carolina keep it close at all tonight vs. the Badgers?

If any 16-seed has a chance to win, it's Coastal Carolina. I don't think they will, and I'm not saying it because it's the Badgers. Competitive with UCLA and Ole Miss on the road, beat Auburn at Auburn. My guess is a comfortable 10-15 point win for the Badgers, but I'll definitely be pulling for the Chanticleers.

[MU/Panther]

Cliff Ellis has been there before. Was leading Virginia by 8 last year.

[pbiflyer]

Can you continue to update this IWB?

[Goose85]

Six games in the books on day 2, and all of the lower seeded teams held court and have won.
Of course my brackets didn't see it happening that way (thanks Buffalo and Indiana).

[IWB]

Can you continue to update this IWB?

Will do.