So who plays in the play-in games?

That seems to be the biggest question most have about the new 68 team tournament.

And when it comes down to it, there are really only two options.


1. Add three more of the current play-in games: The new fields have 17 seed lines instead of 16, and the 16 seeds and the 17 seeds play for the right to take on the 1 seeds in their respective regions. Essentially, this would mean that the small conference tournament winners -- the teams that were 15 and 16 seeds this year -- would be forced to participate in the play-in games.

The problem most people have with this set up is that teams that won their conference tournaments get a raw deal. Four teams that were, by definition, conference champions would not be able to play a "real" tournament game. Part of what makes winning your conference tournament so special is that some of these smaller schools get a shot a knocking off one of the big boys. If they lose, no big deal. Every one expects the Duke's and Kansas's of the world to smack a SWAC or a Big Sky champ. But if they win as a 15 or 16 seed, that team goes down in history. Will anyone ever forget this?

But along those same lines, it also provides a team that otherwise wouldn't have a shot an opportunity to win a game in the NCAA Tournament. It could also mean that we one day see a 1 seed lose their first round game. Part of the reason that a 16 has never beaten a 1 is that the 16 seeds tend to be the teams that were in the middle-of-the-pack of a low-major league during the regular season before catching fire during their conference tournament. When you get to the 15 seeds, you tend to see more teams that dominated league play in a conference that simply did not have the talent to merit a higher seed. A good argument could be made that, over the course of the 64/65 team tournament era, the biggest talent gap between two seeds was between the 15's and the 16's.

Maybe a play-in game will weed out the lesser teams and provide a 1 seed with an opponent that will do more than simply keep it interesting.


2. Force bubble teams to play their way in: The last eight bubble teams have a one-game playoff (I doubt it would still be called a play-in games in this situation) for the right to be slotted in at the last four bubble spots. The way this would most likely happen is that they play for the right to be the 13 seeds.

And while this sounds excellent on paper, actually implementing it could be a bit more problematic.

In the current format, the play-in game is played on the Tuesday before the NCAA Tournament is to begin. If the play-in games earn a team an automatic 12 seed, which is generally believed to be the cut-off for at-large bids most years, it may create a bigger problem. Doesn't it then become better to be a five seed than a four seed? You get to play a team that has had to travel to play a game just two or three days prior, as opposed to playing a well-rested 13 seed that has had a full three or four days to prepare.

If it was this season, would you rather play a 13 seed like Murray State or Siena who had plenty of time to scout and game plan, or the winner of a UTEP-Virginia Tech game played at a neutral site (currently, the play-in game is hosted by Dayton, but if this format was instituted, the play-in game may end up being hosted by whatever venue is hosting the 5-12 match-up) in a game that ended as recently as 36 hours prior?

While this format would be rewarding the 15 and 16 seeds -- which have won a combined four games since the 64/65 team tournament was put into place -- it could end up having some unintended side effects for teams that actually factor into a championship picture.


My personal preference is for the first option. A 15 seed may have won their conference tournament, but if your conference isn't worth a damn, does it matter?

Whatever the NCAA decides to do, I think the one thing we can all agree on is that four play-in games is infinitely better than 32.