Talk:First Four

"Although analysts’ initial reactions to the concept were skeptical, the first game, played on March 13, 2001, was a success, and few complaints have been heard since."

The article itself contradicts that statement by noting the HBCU controversy below. And, anyone who pays attention to the sports media, whether ESPN or blogs, can see that the play-in game is routinely and universally mocked as a pointless cash grab every year. I don't know what the best citation for a new writeup of how sports fans view the play-in would be, so I can't change it myself, but it should be changed. DarthSquidward (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In /* Criticism */ with specific comments about the number of HBCUs that have participated in the Opening Round and First Four, should there be a table listing those teams? To wit:

Historically Black Colleges and Universities in Opening Round and First Four

Year	HBCU
2002	Alcorn State
2003	Texas Southern
2004	Florida A&M
2005	Alabama A&M
2006	Hampton
2007	Florida A&M
2008	Coppin State
2009	Alabama State
2011	Alabama State
2012	Mississippi Valley State
2013	North Carolina State
2014	Texas Southern
2015	Hampton
2016	Southern
2017	North Carolina Central
2018	North Carolina Central
	Texas Southern
2019	North Carolina Central
	Prairie View A&M
2021	Norfolk State
	Texas Southern

TimberFeller (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirect?

Is there a reason "play-in game" redirects here? Shouldn't it go to a page discussing what a play-in game is? Smartyllama (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

and shouldn't the title be changed since it is offically called Opening Round game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.95.83 (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The BS at the end should probably be eliminated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.124.106 (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I redirected the page to the title that is correct. and took all the discussion with it. "Play-In" changed to "Opening Round" January 15th, 2009 Moonraker0022 (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (2009)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved. No objections. Aervanath (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

---

NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Play-In Game → NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Opening Round Game — "Opening Round" is the official title of the game. — X96lee15 (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support This is how the NCAA recognizes it, the article even says something like will now be known as the opening round game. Moonraker0022 (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support How are the four first round teams determined?

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name Change to First Four

I'm not trying to answer this question, I'd rather start a discussion. I understand that there was a previous history of the NCAA Tournament only having 1 play-in game. However, since the First Four has established a history, should the name of this article be changed to the First Four? There are multiple opening round games instead of having the lone play-in game before 2011. What does everyone else think?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Opening Round game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100428225942/http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com:80/2010/basketball/ncaa/04/22/tournament.expansion.ap/index.html?eref=BrkNews to http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/basketball/ncaa/04/22/tournament.expansion.ap/index.html?eref=BrkNews

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

notability

I have a more general question: why does this article exist? The opening round of a tournament is only notable in the context of the tournament, if the lack of references is any indication. Delete? NewkirkPlaza (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Results Section

The "Team Faced" column seems like arbitrary information in the results section. This looks like it should either be removed or be replaced with complete tournament results. It seems to be a round about way to say what seed that winner of the First Four game was given after winning and joining the round of 64. Personally, I think adding the complete results of each team adds supporting evidence to the success of the First Four and is interesting and pertinent information.Terpfear (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I generally agree. The seeding of the teams in the Opening Four games should be shown explicitly. Also of interest is whether a team is an automatic qualifier. The complete results of the winner of the games is of interest as it provides some indication of whether playing an Opening Four game is a detriment to a team. For this, the content of the Scores column of the table at How First Four teams do at the NCAA tournament is pertinent. TimberFeller (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I just published an upgrade to address this talk thread. Note that the links to each team's wikipedia page is to the general team page. In many cases there is a page specific to the year but they are not used. These year-specific pages are, for example, linked to from the page for that year's tournament page. TimberFeller (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)