The new NCAA Tournament format is released

We first started hearing about the possibility of NCAA Tournament expansion as early as December. The fears of a 96 team mega-tournament were put to rest in April when the NCAA announced that they will only be adding three teams to the field of 65, but that begged the question -- who plays in the play-in games?

Many were of the belief that the last eight at-large teams should be forced to play in the play-in games. Why punish the teams from smaller leagues that won their conference championships?

There was also a large contingent pushing for the last eight teams overall -- the teams that won the worst eight conferences -- to be put into the play-in games, creating a first round that eliminated four of the worst teams in the tournament. This is a national championship, right? Regardless of where the teams are coming from, shouldn't the 64 best teams have the best chance of winning?

Earlier today, the NCAA announced the new format. Instead of picking a lane, they compromised. Our new 68 team field will be a hybrid. The details:

• Two of the play-in games will be between the final four automatic qualifiers. The teams seeded 65th-68th will play for the right to face the top two No. 1 seeds.
• The other two play-in games will be between the final four at-large qualifiers. This is where it gets tricky. Generally, the final at-large bids are somewhere in the 11 and 12 seed range. Since the seed lines for the final four at-large bids will differ based on the year, the NCAA will be able to place these games as any of the 10, 11, or 12 seeds. One play-in game could be for a 10 seed, the other for an 11 seed. They both could be for 12 seeds. As of now, there are now strict guidelines.
  
• All four play-in games, which have been dubbed the "First Four" (catchy), will be shown on TruTV in 2011. There is no guarantee that this will be permanent, but CBS/Turner -- who bought the rights to the tournament -- are looking to expand the channel.
  
• The teams that are forced into the play-in rounds will be determined by RPI, according to Andy Katz.
• The NCAA has yet to announce when and where the games will be played, the general consensus seems to be that there will be double-headers on the Tuesday and the Wednesday before the tournament "begins".
• From this point forward, the "First Four" will be known as the first round, the round of 64 will be referred to as the second round, and the round of 32 the third round.
  

I think it goes without saying that a 68-team tournament is less than ideal. The most logical way to seed any tournament, regardless of the number of teams involved, is numerically, or with eight automatic qualifiers playing in the opening round. But the tournament expanded because the NCAA wanted more money, and who is going to watch four play-in games between no name schools from conferences no one's heard of on TruTV?

That's why the NCAA compromised. The best of both world's for their organization, and they appease both the high-major schools that will spend time on the bubble and the low-majors that don't want to get pigeon-holed as "play-in game leagues".

Me?

I hate it.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't have much on an opinion about how the new tournament should be structured; both sides had a valid argument. But this hybrid model? No thank you.

• Name another championship -- be it pro sports, amateur sports, poker, beer pong, anything -- where a higher ranked team has to play more games than a lower ranked team to advance. Let's say that one of the at-large play-in games is for a 12 seed, and that the winner of the play-in game advances to the third round. If the 13 seed also advances, is it fair for the higher ranked team to be playing their third game in five days while the lower seeded team will only be playing two in three? This may seem insignificant, but this game would be for the right to advance to the Sweet 16, which is a significant achievement.
• The fact that a 10 seed could be playing in one of the two at-large play-in games in absurd. I'm far from the only person that believes that a 10 seed beating a 7 seed is not an upset. In a tournament with 68 teams, there shouldn't be a play-in game for a spot in the top 40. That's ridiculous.
• How long will it be before a five seed that loses to the twelve seed winner or a six seed that loses to the eleven seed winner will complain about the advantage the other team had playing two days earlier? It cost the top four teams in the Big East Tournament a double-bye.
  
• This floating play-in game makes bracketing the tournament that much more confusing. Is the average fan going to be able to follow along? With expansionocalypse proving how important college basketball really is on a national level, shouldn't the sport be trying to attract every average fan they can?
• Speaking of average fans, a huge reason why the NCAA Tournament is able to garner the money and attention it does is because everyone and their brother fills out a bracket. With this extra day of games -- of meaningful games -- occurring on a Tuesday, what does this do to the average office pool? Are people going to get organized, make their picks, get their money in, etc. in two days? Teams seeded 10th, 11th, and 12th are the most popular upset picks. What if two of those seeds aren't determined? If pool organizers decide the wait until after those games are played -- essentially giving everyone a freebie pick on those games -- will anyone actually want to watch them? How many people are truly going to care about Utah State playing NC State without a pick on the line?
  

I'll have more on this tomorrow, but for now, color me unimpressed.