Skip to main content

The four play-in games is not the first round of the NCAA Tournament

I've been slightly perplexed since the start of the NCAA Tournament last week. Following the four play-in games last Tuesday and Wednesday, we were down to 64 teams, as has been the case for quite some time. As the games were being played on Thursday and Friday, many college basketball analysts and commentators referred to the games as 2nd round action, and Saturday and Sundays games as 3rd round action. I'm sorry, but until the brackets are expanded further and every team has to play another round of games, I'm not going to refer to these four play-in games as the first round. What, does that mean 60 teams have byes that round? That's quite the playoff system right there!

I imagine the genius behind the format was thinking, "Okay, you know how in pro football, each conference has six teams in the playoffs, with the two best teams having byes in the first round? Let's times that by fifteen, where we have eight teams play in the first round and give sixty teams byes! It's brilliant, I tell you! Simply brilliant!"

Also, when filling in brackets, have you heard of anyone picking those four play-in games? If so, I'm not aware of this (outside of Vegas, of course). This would require that people fill in and hand over their picks by Tuesday evening, just two days after the teams have been announced. It can be difficult enough filling in brackets and turning them in within four days, let alone in half that time.

Let's call these games for what they are - play-in games. When only 8 of 68 teams (11.8%) play these games, that does not make them a round of games. When almost 90% of the teams don't play these games, I think it's pretty safe to say it's not a round. If I take that percentage and apply it to either professional basketball or hockey (16 total playoff teams in each sport), that would equate to under two teams (1.89) playing in the first "round" of the playoffs. Unless there's something I haven't been informed about, that's not possible and would not equate to being a round in the playoffs, just as the four play-in games to precede the NCAA Tournament doesn't equate them to being a round either.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"