The Best Joke Ever Told
Posted by hoopsknowitall on August 3, 2007
There is a joke that trumps all jokes. One that is so ridiculous, so insanely ludicris that even the coldest, most protected individual is forced to succomb to overwhelming laughter. Or a smirk, at least.
This joke has a name. It’s called…”The NCAA Tournament Play-In Game”.
With so many ways to gawk, ridicule, and belittle, how can a simple blog author pick just one?
Let’s go ahead and get to the heart of the problem. In a tournament of 64 teams, the 65th team is snubbed. In a tournament of 16, it’d be the 17th team, and in a tournament of 256, it’d be the 257th team. If you’re the organization creating the rules (this is you, NCAA), you grit your teeth and bare the barrage of insults. It’s going to happen regardless, and the addition of the extra game is a joke in and of itself. If there is one element that holds the 64+1 team NCAA March Madness bracket from perfection, it’s the play-in game.
There is, however, something even more mind-boggling about all of this. If you were to ask an outsider to define a “play-in” game in referrence to a tournament setting, that person would likely describe two teams who must “play their way into” the tournament setting. However, this isn’t the case with March Madness. The NCAA forces the two lowest-selected auto-qualifying squads to face each other in this so-called “play-in” game.
Okay, now I’m confused. The two teams have already automatically qualified for inclusion in the tournament, yet they must “play their way in”?
So, here is my request. Either (A) Force the final two at-large selections to participate in the “play-in” game, or (B) Rename the game to “The Bottom Two Game” or something similar.
Or, the NCAA could show some intelligence for once and get rid of the abomination altogether.
Kennith said
I completely agree. Just straight up say hey we are having 64 teams not 65, because you are always leaving someone out you know. I wonder the origins of this rule. Maybe someone was 65th and he new some people on the bored, and badaboom badabang “Play in Game.”
Brian said
I agree with everything that has been said here, but as a fan of a program that has won the play-in game, let me say that I don’t find the game an abomination.
First, as flawed as the premise is, the play-in winner really is but a blip in history. They win the play-in and go onto to become a speedbump for a national #1 seed. They hardly have an affect on the outcome of the tournament.
Second, when Oakland (MI) University won the play-in game, it gave the program something that getting steamrolled by UNC would not have — national attention.
All the media big boys showed up wondering who was Oakland U. and why weren’t they in California?
The win in that game gave OU it’s biggest day in athletics to date, a NCAA Tournament win, tons of attention and something for the program to build upon.
The play-in game isn’t perfect, I concur. But, in that one small win, a university can be energized. Ideally, isn’t that what college athletics are about?
hoopsknowitall said
I understand your position, but I’d still get rid of it in the drop of a hat.
And I disagree about the 16 seeds. It never having happened before doesn’t mean it can’t happen. I pull for every 16 seed every season, and it’s bound to happen eventually.