I know that this is about a week old or so, but I can’t stop wondering what decision making process would result in the expanded NCAA men’s basketball tournament including play-in games for an 11th and 12th seed.  I get why it’s better to get as many schools as possible into the tourney.  More games on TV, more money, more exposure for more schools, etc.  But I’m completely lost why the play-in games wouldn’t be confined to the 16 seeds.

Earning a higher seed based upon your regular season performance is a cornerstone of all major professional and collegiate sports.  If you prove yourself during the regular season as a superior team, you are rewarded with favorable matchups and game locations.  This ensures that as many regular season games as possible are meaningful, and it increases the likelihood of the two best teams in the country meeting in the championship game.

The mid-seed play-in game creates some perverse incentives.  Would a team try to avoid the play-in game in order to increase the likelihood of them winning the championship, or would they seek the play-in game for the guaranteed television exposure?  I’m not sure which is the more powerful incentive, but either way it creates a situation where there will be an incentive for teams to throw games during the regular season to try to either land on or avoid the play-in game.

Given that the field is expanded to 68 teams, is there any good reason why anybody other than 16 seeds should have to qualify through play-in games?  I’m having trouble thinking of even a remotely plausible counter argument, so if anyone disagrees with me I’d love to hear the other side.