NCAA Tournament 2011: 5 Reasons Why Play-in Games Create Too Much Madness

Even after UNC Asheville won an exciting play-in game versus Arkansas-Little Rock last night, the idea of having more play-in games to increase the number of teams that make the tournament is a terrible one.

In fact, play-in games should be removed all together for a number of reasons—the first being the false feeling of accomplishment when teams win a play-in game.

I understand the NCAA is trying to create even more revenue dollars with the added games (and still refusing to pay players, many of whom will never earn a pro contract), but there has to be a better way to make more money during what is already a massively popular time of the year.

I will now reveal five reasons why the NCAA should get rid of play-in games to benefit the schools, players, coaches and fans.

These reasons are in no particular order.

Follow Nicholas Goss on Twitter, @nwgoss 

1. What Is the Accomplishment for Winning These Games?

Gregory Shamus/Getty Images

DAYTON, OH - MARCH 15: J.P. Primm #3 of the North Carolina-Asheville Bulldogs celebrates after defeating the Arkansas Little Rock Trojans during the first round of the 2011 NCAA men's basketball tournament at UD Arena on March 15, 2011 in Dayton, Ohio.

Last night, CBS' Jim Nantz excitedly exclaimed that the UNC Asheville squad would go to the NCAA tournament's second round, immediately causing all 12 people around me to think, second round?

Let's be real for a minute. The winners of these play-in games earn the right to do what all the better teams have already done—face a team in the "real" tournament.

These play-in games are not the first round of the tournament; they are more like the preliminary stages to find out which teams that barely made the tournament deserved to be there.

Now UNC Asheville will play a quality opponent—and likely get destroyed by halftime.

Seeing the players jump up and down in excitement as if they accomplished something is laughable. I understand you won a tournament game—this fact cannot be argued. But to the rest of America, you haven't accomplished anything. 

2. Are Play-in Games the Best Way to Solve "Bubble" Team Controversies?

Gregory Shamus/Getty Images

DAYTON, OH - MARCH 15: head coach Brad Brownell of the Clemson Tigers speaks to his players Devin Booker #31, Tanner Smith #5 and Demontez Stitt #2 on the bench against the UAB Blazers during the first round of the 2011 NCAA men's basketball tournament at

With so many teams deserving of a bid to play in the NCAA tournament, are play-in games the fairest way to decide which bubble team is worthy of a bid into the normal 64-team field?

No, and here's why.

The idea sounds good at first thought, but how would you determine which bubble teams play in these games? Which conferences are most deserving of having the most teams in these games, etc.

Most of these teams that made the play-in games were bubble teams, and many of them shouldn't have even made it to these games.

Having play-in games solve the bubble mess won't eliminate controversy—it will create even more of it.

3. More Games Creates More Revenue, but Student-Athletes Still Not Being Paid

Andy Lyons/Getty Images

INDIANAPOLIS, IN - MARCH 13: Jared Sullinger #0 of the Ohio State Buckeyes celebrates with the Big Ten Championship trophy after OHio State won 71-60 against the Penn State Nittany Lions during the championship game of the 2011 Big Ten Men's Basketball T

The more tournament games that are played, the more money the NCAA and its sponsors, along with the television networks, will make.

If the NCAA is making more revenue from these added play-in games, why not give the players some of the pie?

While we could argue the issue of paying college players all month, it would seem fair and appropriate to give these players some money to help with their expenses.

Many of these players, by the NCAA's own admission in their commercials, will not go pro in the sport they play.

Yes, many kids receive scholarships that greatly help their college expenses, but tuition isn't the only expense during school.

These athletes will have to find normal jobs like everyone else once they graduate. Giving help to the people who make all the revenue possible sounds like a great idea; unfortunately, the NCAA is too blinded by its own greed to do the right thing.

4. More Games Equal More Networks; Is That a Good Thing?

Chris Trotman/Getty Images

NEW YORK, NY - MARCH 10: Jeremy Lamb #3 of the Connecticut Huskies shoots over J.J. Richardson #55 of the Pittsburgh Panthers during the quarterfinals of the 2011 Big East Men's Basketball Tournament presented by American Eagle Outfitters at Madison Squ

Now that the tournament is broadcast on four different networks, fans will be frantically switching between channels every time a whistle is blown for a stoppage in play.

Do people enjoy all this channel flipping while they're trying to keep tabs on several games at once? Doubtful.

Now that the tournament is on cable networks as well, many people who do not have cable or satellite television won't be able to watch these games.

The play-in games are on TruTV, which I am sure most of you will tune to for the first time this week. 

Comcast, one of the largest cable companies in America, has made TruTV a digital channel, which means those who haven't upgraded to a digital box yet may not be able to watch the play-in games.

So why have play-in games on a network few college basketball fans watch or even a channel that fans cannot watch?

After the play-in games, TruTV will host seven of the first weekend's games. It will be interesting to see the ratings figures of these games. 

5. The Media Should Focus on Great Stories and Not the Anger of Bubbles Burst

Jamie Squire/Getty Images

KANSAS CITY, MO - MARCH 12: (L-R) Marcus Morris #22, Thomas Robinson #0 and Markieff Morris #21 of the Kansas Jayhawks celebrate after defeating the Texas Longhorns 85-73 to win the 2011 Phillips 66 Big 12 Men's Basketball Tournament championship game at

This week, the media has displayed more controversy over who didn't get in the tournament than any year in recent memory. This is not good for college basketball.

Instead of the media talking about who didn't make the play-in games, let's get rid of play-in games so everyone can focus on the tournament.

There is no good that comes from bubble teams getting upset and making angry remarks in the media about how they feel they've been disrespected by the selection committee.

Fans want to hear about the Cinderella stories, about players who have come so far from a rough childhood, etc.

March Madness is about excitement and great stories. The abundance of play-in games greatly reduces the chances of having the most excitement.

No 16th-Seed Wins in Tournament History Proves the Field Doesn't Need More Games

Streeter Lecka/Getty Images

GREENSBORO, NC - MARCH 13: Kyrie Irving #1, Kyle Singler #12 and Tyler Thornton #3 of the Duke Blue Devils celebrate their 75-58 victory over the North Carolina Tar Heels in the championship game of the 2011 ACC men's basketball tournament at the Greensb

No 16th-seeded team has ever won a game versus a No. 1 seed in NCAA history, so why expand the tournament?

When you add games, you just water down the tournament and allow more mediocrity to enter the field.

The 64-team tournament structure was the best way for the NCAA to go, but with greed making them find new ways to make more money—even ways that hurt the tournament—the system may be broken forever.

Play-in games only allow for smaller, lesser-known schools to showcase their mediocrity on the national stage or an underachieving school from a power conference.

Do those teams sound exciting? No. No one wants to watch teams that few people care about on national television.

College basketball fans LOVE upsets and close games. This won't happen in a field with too many teams because the gap in skill between most teams would be too wide.

With no play-in games, the NCAA tournament is properly structured so upsets can, and will, happen and allow for the most deserving teams to get in.