Disclaimer: whereas 10 years ago I could name 2 or 3 starters on most every Tourney team, this year I can't even name one player on two of the #1 seeds.
But I can do math, and I'm not stupid - which apparently disqualifies me from being a member of the NCAA's Selection Committee. Explain this to me: why are the four play-in games for two #16 seeds, a #12, and an #11? What is the logic behind that?
As I see it, there's only two ways to handle a 68-team field: all of the play-in games must either be for #16 seeds, representing the 8 worst teams of the field, or for whatever seed number represents the 8 worst at-large entrants (i.e. the last 8 in). It would be most logical to have the 8 worst auto qualifiers - but I could understand the Committee not wanting to totally crap on those conferences by making them earn the right to get slaughtered by Duke, so I could understand having a play-in for the UABs and Clemsons of the world to fight it out for a #12 seed.
But what makes ZERO sense is to have the play-ins staggered as in this year's bracket. Why is it that SE #11 seed Gonzaga only has to win 6 times to win the title, but in the Southwest, USC or VCU must win a 7th game - and they're #11 seeds, too?!?! Consider that in '06, George Mason made it to the Final 4 as an #11...so we can't say "Oh, it doesn't matter, these teams will lose anyway." It does matter; these at-large teams and these #11/#12 seeds are fully capable of making a run into the Sweet 16 or farther. The inequity in allowing three #11 and #12 seeds a pass into the true first round, while forcing 4 other teams to play an extra game as the same seed number, is absolutely illogical and indefensible.