• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2023-24 Wake Forest Basketball Season - 21-14 (11-9) - KP#29 / NET#43

TheIshThatSaved WakeForest said:
This has already been covered but they are not called play in games anywhere even if functionally that’s what they are
Click to expand...

37ad9adec29ac3c1bfc0a39188ab75e6.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Haros said:
To start: I am of the opinion that of course it counts as a bid even if it’s only half as satisfying.

That said: if the field didn’t expand by 4, the auto bids would still be auto bids. And 4 less total slots. And thus it would be the last 4 at-large teams that didn’t make the cut. The 4 Dayton teams. Not just 2 of them.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm taking crazy pills but I don't think this is right - the tourney is still a 64 team bracket. The First Four serves to eliminate 2 auto-bid teams (not 4) and "adds in" 2 at-large teams (not 4). This results in two 16's that were auto-bids and 2 at-large's in the opening round of 64 games. If all 4 auto-bids were in the field of 64 there would be 2 fewer at-large teams missing, not 4.

In other words, yes they added 4 teams but they also eliminate 4 teams outside the field of 64 bracket. So the impact on the seeds is halved. The First Four sacrifices 2 auto-bids for 2 at-large bids. My argument is it should sacrifice 4 at-large bids because all 4 at-large teams in the First Four, and the next two at-large teams that get left out, are far better than the auto-bid teams.

The field of 64 didn't just blindly get expanded by 4. It got expanded by 2 auto-bids and 2 at-large bids.

Look at last year for example. Let's say Southeast Missouri State and Texas Southern hadn't been eliminated in the First Four, then they would have been 2 of the 16's, and a 2 team shift would have pushed all the way down the field. 2 of the 4 at-large First Four teams would have been pushed out. Not all 4 of them.
 
DCDeac said:
Maybe I'm taking crazy pills but I don't think this is right - the tourney is still a 64 team bracket. The First Four serves to eliminate 2 auto-bid teams (not 4) and "adds in" 2 at-large teams (not 4). This results in two 16's that were auto-bids and 2 at-large's in the opening round of 64 games. If all 4 auto-bids were in the field of 64 there would be 2 fewer at-large teams missing, not 4.

In other words, yes they added 4 teams but they also eliminate 4 teams outside the field of 64 bracket. So the impact on the seeds is halved. The First Four sacrifices 2 auto-bids for 2 at-large bids. My argument is it should sacrifice 4 at-large bids because all 4 at-large teams in the First Four, and the next two at-large teams that get left out, are far better than the auto-bid teams.

The field of 64 didn't just blindly get expanded by 4. It got expanded by 2 auto-bids and 2 at-large bids.

Look at last year for example. Let's say Southeast Missouri State and Texas Southern hadn't been eliminated in the First Four, then they would have been 2 of the 16's, and a 2 team shift would have pushed all the way down the field. 2 of the 4 at-large First Four teams would have been pushed out. Not all 4 of them.
Click to expand...

There are 68 teams in the tournament.

If we move to 64, we must take 4 teams out.

If we don't take any auto bids, that means we must take 4 at-large

The 4 bottom at-large teams are in play-in games in Dayton.
 
thatguy2016 said:
There are 68 teams in the tournament.

If we move to 64, we must take 4 teams out.

If we don't take any auto bids, that means we must take 4 at-large

The 4 bottom at-large teams are in play-in games in Dayton.
Click to expand...

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me of disagreeing.

First 4 takes out 4 teams, but they are required to be 2 auto-bids and 2 at-large bids. Not 4 at-large bids.
 
DCDeac said:
I can't tell if you're agreeing with me of disagreeing.

First 4 takes out 4 teams, but they are required to be 2 auto-bids and 2 at-large bids. Not 4 at-large bids.
Click to expand...

I'm disagreeing.

The last part of your post:

Look at last year for example. Let's say Southeast Missouri State and Texas Southern hadn't been eliminated in the First Four, then they would have been 2 of the 16's, and a 2 team shift would have pushed all the way down the field. 2 of the 4 at-large First Four teams would have been pushed out. Not all 4 of them.
Click to expand...

If SWMS and TSU hadn't been eliminated in the play-in games, they would have been 2 of the 16's and shift would have occurred - that I agree with. But the two-team shift happens AFTER Wednesday, not before, so all four at-large play-in teams (the two who won and the two who lost) are all out.
 
Random thought of the day - I’ve noticed after bad losses or collapses that sometimes the players or player families get mad when the fans are frustrated or speak out against failure. I dislike when that narrative seeps into their heads and instead of focusing on taking the next step forward people get focused on the comments and clapping back at the “haters” who are often simply pointing out the obvious. I hope that doesn’t happen to this Deacs team as we fight to stay perfect at home and earn a berth to the field of 68.
 
thatguy2016 said:
I'm disagreeing.

The last part of your post:



If SWMS and TSU hadn't been eliminated in the play-in games, they would have been 2 of the 16's and shift would have occurred - that I agree with. But the two-team shift happens AFTER Wednesday, not before, so all four at-large play-in teams (the two who won and the two who lost) are all out.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make any sense. If you put the 2 losing 16's back in the field, and you remove all 4 at-large First Four teams, you're missing 2 teams and you have all of the auto-bids in the field.

First Four trades 2 16's to give a shot to 2 additional at-larges. But 4 at-large teams play.
 
DCDeac said:
That doesn't make any sense. If you put the 2 losing 16's back in the field, and you remove all 4 at-large First Four teams, you're missing 2 teams and you have all of the auto-bids in the field.

First Four trades 2 16's to give a shot to 2 additional at-larges. But 4 at-large teams play.
Click to expand...
68-4=64
 
We should trim the tournament down to 14 teams as chosen by a panel of 25 people only loosely affiliated with the sport. The Big Ten and SEC will get three automatic bids each, with the ACC and the Big XII will each get two. Only the highest rated other conference champion will make the tournament, and then we'll throw in three other schools who are "at large."
 
If there were no first four games, then we would have to have four fewer teams in the entire tournament.

And we can't strip away any auto bids.

Therefore we would have to strip away 4 at-large bids. The at-large bids of the four at-large teams invited to Dayton. So none of them would be in the tournament at all.
 
thatguy2016 said:
If there were no first four games, then we would have to have four fewer teams in the entire tournament.

And we can't strip away any auto bids.

Therefore we would have to strip away 4 at-large bids. The at-large bids of the four at-large teams invited to Dayton. So none of them would be in the tournament at all.
Click to expand...

Oh noes!
 
I don't know how to explain it any clearer. They did not just expand it blindly to 68 teams. It is not possible for 4 auto-bids to make it through the First 4.

You can't just say 68 reduced to 64 means 4 at large go away, because it is not physically possible for that to happen.
 
DCDeac said:
I don't know how to explain it any clearer. They did not just expand it blindly to 68 teams. It is not possible for 4 auto-bids to make it through the First 4.

You can't just say 68 reduced to 64 means 4 at large go away, because it is not physically possible for that to happen.
Click to expand...

ok. We're clearly talking past each other. I agree with Haros.
 
Objectively I think we are better off being a play in 11 seed than an 8 seed. It would put us in a really good spot against a 6 seed, then who knows the matchup after the brackets are busted. This can't be said for a 8/9 or really a 10 seed. We would be walking into a top tier buzz saw if we won a tough opening round game. Best case scenario is we lose in the ACC championship game and are an outright 11 seed.

The problem we all have with it is that deep down in our cold misrable hearts, we all know this team loses in Dayton. We haven't beaten a competitive team this season out of the Joel.

We are cusred, doomed to be misreable fucks, wasting our days arguing over arbitrary meanigless points on a sports message board.
 
Last edited:
It is such a stupid argument about whether the first 4 is part of the tournament. In actuality, two things are both true - the NCAA tourney field was expanded to 68 teams. Because of the formatting for that number of teams, the first 4 format is necessary. By definition 68 teams "make the tourney". But, only making the first 4 and losing is certainly less satisfying than making the main draw and feels like you 'kinda' made it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top