March Madness: The Real Solution for the First Four

Yesterday, Chris Godfrey wrote a piece detailing that the First Four is broken. While I agree completely with that idea, I have a completely different view on how to fix it. The First Four could definitely stand to make some changes, but some of the changes Chris proposes are unnecessary, while others are a step backwards.

The name doesn’t make any sense?

Good point, I’ll definitely agree with that. I’m with Greg Doyel: they should go back to calling “First Four” games “Play-In” games. After all, it’s not like the losers will ever get the true NCAA Tournament experience.

Location, Location, Location…is perfect right now

The idea of moving these games has come up regularly, and every time it’s decided that Dayton is the right home. While I’m not a fan of the lack of reception that the teams get compared to those in the other 48 games on the first weekend, even I’ll admit that the reason for this is that Dayton is unquestionably the right home for the first two days of the tournament.

But how do you get around Dayton being given a home game in the opening round? As a whole, I’d say the best solution is to be more lenient about moving teams up or down a seed line. This year, the obvious solution would’ve been to give Dayton the 8-10 seed it deserved and keep the team out of the Play-In games entirely.

Bubble Teams Auto-Bids Get the Shaft

I understand that half the teams in the play-in games are in the “middle” of the field, but as recently as 2011 those teams would’ve been playing in the NIT. The fact that they get an opportunity to fight their way into the field — and often beyond the Round of 64 — should be enough of a reward.

More from March Madness

The rules about earning your way into the NCAA Tournament are clear: if you win your conference tournament, you eliminate all doubt about your spot in the NCAA Tournament. Unfortunately, four of the play-in bids really don’t count as a spot in the tournament. With that in mind, why punish a team that earned its bid and reward a team that would’ve been playing in the NIT five years ago?

Sending eight at-large teams into the play-in games is a win-win-win-win. The kids on the 16-seeds win, because they get the shot at Goliath that they earned by winning their conference tournament. The fans win, because they get to watch two more games between teams with a realistic shot at making a run in the tournament. The people who stand to make TV money from the games win, because the fans are much more interested in the games. You could even argue that the at-large teams stuck in Dayton win: they get an opportunity to work out the jitters of being on the big stage. There’s little doubt in my mind that this played a role in the success of teams like 2011 VCU, 2013 LaSalle and 2014 Tennessee.

While we’re at it, let’s add intrigue to the Play-In games

While we’re on the topic of who should play in the game, let’s give the people what Bracket Busters should’ve been. Four at-large teams from the six Power Conferences (college football’s Power Five plus the Big East — don’t try to tell me Georgetown is a mid-major) against four teams from the other 26 conferences.

Power conference teams would be given the opportunity to prove that a 19-win team from one of the big leagues really would dominate if it weren’t for all of the opportunities for “quality losses,” and mid-majors wouldn’t feel the need to cry foul that their at-large teams were being forced to cannibalize one another.

Chris had the right idea: the “First Four” games need to be changed. But they shouldn’t be changed at the expense of a city that has been a phenomenal host or teams that earned a rightful spot in the NCAA Tournament field. Eight teams that have a legitimate shot to win a couple games in the Big Dance would create a huge increase in the interest and TV ratings of the “First Four.”

Next: 2015 NCAA Tournament TV Schedule

More from Busting Brackets

Home/March Madness