Am I the only one that questioned why 11-seeds were in the play-in game? It seems that any team that manages to earn a seed that is not "16" deserves to be a part of the core 64 (Which conveniently rhymed).
What would be the difference just having a play-in game for each 16-seed in every division? Sure, it may sell less tickets, but VCU vs. USC isn't exactly the highly prestigious matchup I've waited all year for anyway.
It may as well be Harvard vs. UAB for the final spot in the tournament. For the record, UAB did not deserve to get in over such schools as Virginia Tech, Colorado and Harvard, but that's for a different story.
As we have unexpectedly seen, VCU has earned their spot into the round of 32 after defeating USC and Georgetown. Up next, they face the No. 3-seeded Purdue Boilermakers—but will VCU have the energy to continue their miracle-minded run? Three games against top competition in this short of a span is asking a lot out of a team, no matter who it may be, let alone an at-large bid out of the Colonial Athletic Association.
I suppose if none of these teams bring it up as a complaint, it will not matter. It does not seem as if the tournament is fair though, when, for example, Marquette earned the same seed VCU did, but has to play one less game.
This is the first year for the tournament's new look, so some changes will need to be made to improve the new system of 68.