Niagara: From Play-In To At-Large?

I think the basic premise of the play-in game is flawed. It penalizes two small schools and destroys the dream of one of those teams by not allowing them in the NCAA tournament.

The play-in game also makes for mediocre television, since America only loves the David team if they are trying to slay Goliath, not another David.

The Tuesday play-in day could be way more entertaining with one simple change:

Sixty-two teams are guaranteed a tournament slot, the final four at-large consideration teams play in a doubleheader, and the two winners finalize the bracket.

Most of the talk around tournament time is about the bubble anyway—let’s make two games where the teams control their fate.

For example, a Michigan-Rhode Island and Providence-Niagara doubleheader would be way more exciting for basketball fans, and it would give four teams the chance to prove they belong.

Of course for people following the bubble, you may be wondering why I chose Niagara for this game, since they aren’t really on anyone’s bubble. Maybe they should be.

I am pretty realistic when I write that Niagara will probably not get an at-large bid, and Siena may even have a difficult time getting one, since the MAAC is perceived as an inferior basketball conference in comparison to the SEC or even Conference USA.

This year in the SEC, LSU is the leader and Tennessee probably is getting in also. After that, do any of the teams deserve a bid?

Conference USA is the Memphis conference, with a decent UAB team, and that’s about it.

The challenge the committee has is to put the best 34 at-large teams in. Deciding which teams are most deserving of a bid is done with a lot of analysis using criteria such as road record, conference record, RPI, and last 10 games.

Let’s look at Niagara with an open mind for a moment.

Niagara has 12 road wins. They finished 14-4 in their conference. Their RPI is in the 50’s. They are 9-1 in their last 10 games. There really is only a case for Niagara if they make the MAAC tournament finals and lose to Siena in a close game.

The tournament is in Albany, making it a home game for Siena. The argument against Siena’s at-large bid is that they played very good teams, but didn’t beat any of them. I remember the same argument about Davidson last year (who thankfully got the automatic bid), and they had the ball for a shot in the Final Four.

Siena probably deserves an automatic bid if they lose in the finals to Niagara, who is on fire now. If Siena beats Niagara in the finals, Niagara deserves real consideration.

I know the flaw is that Niagara didn’t play a strong schedule. The two very good opponents Niagara faced recently were both at home, and Niagara beat Siena and Illinois State easily.

The goal of the committee should be to get the best 34 teams into the tournament, and the 34 best teams in December aren’t the best teams now.

If Utah State doesn’t get the automatic bid, they don’t deserve to be in, because they haven’t played very well down the stretch. I’m not sure if a team like Providence is better than Niagara, since Providence beat both Syracuse and Pittsburgh at home, and Niagara didn’t.

Then again, Niagara doesn’t get the opportunity to do so.

I really would like to see the two teams play it out on a court, with something on the line. Two years ago, Niagara was in the play-in game in Dayton, basically because the NCAA needed a sacrificial lamb so two predominately black colleges weren’t in the game (their reasoning, not my analysis).

I think my system would avoid the sacrificial lamb scenario and provide for a lot more entertainment in the process.

Plus, it would occasionally give the Niagara’s of the world the chance to make their case in an arena, a place they’ve been really good recently.