+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: expanding the NIT? (/thread-682226.html)
expanding the NIT? - Dracorex - 03-17-2014 12:44 AM
With 13 auto bids this year to it due to the number 1 seeds in a lot of conference tournament losing their respective tournaments, is it time to consider going to 48 teams in the NIT?
RE: expanding the NIT? - OrangeCrush22 - 03-17-2014 01:33 AM
I wouldn't mind. There's some good basketball to watch in the NIT.
RE: expanding the NIT? - stever20 - 03-17-2014 06:34 AM
I don't know about 48 but could easily see going up to 40. Richmond, Maryland, Marquette, Indiana, Mid Tennessee, UNLV, Boise, Washington, Mississippi- of those 9- 8 would have gotten to play.
One thing that'll be interesting to see is what conferences will do about all these bid thieves. Some conferences have gerrymandered their conference tourney so much that at times I think it hurts the conference champion.
RE: expanding the NIT? - wleakr - 03-17-2014 07:32 AM
(03-17-2014 06:34 AM)stever20 Wrote: One thing that'll be interesting to see is what conferences will do about all these bid thieves. Some conferences have gerrymandered their conference tourney so much that at times I think it hurts the conference champion.
Conferences will do very little, if anything because the potential for "thievery" is what makes tourney week exciting for fans to watch.
The regular season, IMO, does not truly crown a conference champion (do they even get anything besides acknowledgment?), so much as it's for jockeying for seed position to be conference champion in the tourney.
RE: expanding the NIT? - stever20 - 03-17-2014 07:44 AM
(03-17-2014 07:32 AM)wleakr Wrote:(03-17-2014 06:34 AM)stever20 Wrote: One thing that'll be interesting to see is what conferences will do about all these bid thieves. Some conferences have gerrymandered their conference tourney so much that at times I think it hurts the conference champion.
Conferences will do very little, if anything because the potential for "thievery" is what makes tourney week exciting for fans to watch.
The regular season, IMO, does not truly crown a conference champion (do they even get anything besides acknowledgment?), so much as it's for jockeying for seed position to be conference champion in the tourney.
My point is conferences last few years have tried to rig their tourney to make it where the conference champion is "protected" by not having to play until the sf. But that's in a lot of situations actually hurt the conference champion in the tourney.
RE: expanding the NIT? - arkstfan - 03-17-2014 08:56 AM
I prefer the format of the Women's NIT.
They give an auto bid to the highest rated remaining team from every conference then 32 at-large berths.
RE: expanding the NIT? - BruceMcF - 03-17-2014 09:13 AM
(03-17-2014 12:44 AM)Dracorex Wrote: With 13 auto bids this year to it due to the number 1 seeds in a lot of conference tournament losing their respective tournaments, is it time to consider going to 48 teams in the NIT?The NIT is historically supposed to be an "Invitational Tournament", not a "We Have To Take You Tournament". So I'd like to see could see a play-in round to keep the at-large bids at 24 or more ... if more than 8 schools earned auto-bids in the regular season, the play-in round expands to match.
RE: expanding the NIT? - Captain Bearcat - 03-17-2014 09:45 AM
I actually really like the new NIT. It makes the regular season actually mean something for the 15 conferences that are perennial shoe-ins for 1 bid to the Big Dance. If the regular season champ loses in the conference tourney, at least there's a decent consolation prize.
Adding more at-large teams would just make the NIT worth less to those conference champs. So I say leave it as-is. If I had to change it, I'd rather shrink it than expand it.
RE: expanding the NIT? - bullet - 03-17-2014 09:45 AM
There's a CIT with 32 teams and CBI with 16. NCAA doesn't promote NIT much. Several hours after the field was announced their official site still didn't have the bracket. Unless your school is invited, you may not have heard of the other two either. CIT doesn't have any P5, AAC, MWC or BE schools. CBI does have Oregon St., Penn St., Texas A&M, Wyoming and Fresno from those conferences.
RE: expanding the NIT? - BruceMcF - 03-17-2014 10:46 AM
(03-17-2014 09:45 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: Adding more at-large teams would just make the NIT worth less to those conference champs. So I say leave it as-is. If I had to change it, I'd rather shrink it than expand it.I'm not saying that more at large spots should necessarily be added ... the fact is that fewer at-large spots become available the more regular season auto-bids are claimed, and I'd like them to have a more stable number of invitational bids.
A 40 team tournament with an automatic bid to the highest ranking regular season team in every single-bid conference would give 22-24 automatic places and 16-18 invitational places, which is one to three fewer invitational place than this year, but the number of invitational places would only swing by one or two from year to year.
That would also reduce the incentive of lower tier conferences to try to rig their tournament for an upset, to add an NIT auto-bid to their NCAA auto-bid.
RE: expanding the NIT? - MissouriStateBears - 03-17-2014 10:47 AM
(03-17-2014 08:56 AM)arkstfan Wrote: I prefer the format of the Women's NIT.
They give an auto bid to the highest rated remaining team from every conference then 32 at-large berths.
This. The WNIT is much better format than the men's.
RE: expanding the NIT? - arkstfan - 03-17-2014 11:08 AM
(03-17-2014 10:46 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:(03-17-2014 09:45 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: Adding more at-large teams would just make the NIT worth less to those conference champs. So I say leave it as-is. If I had to change it, I'd rather shrink it than expand it.I'm not saying that more at large spots should necessarily be added ... the fact is that fewer at-large spots become available the more regular season auto-bids are claimed, and I'd like them to have a more stable number of invitational bids.
A 40 team tournament with an automatic bid to the highest ranking regular season team in every single-bid conference would give 22-24 automatic places and 16-18 invitational places, which is one to three fewer invitational place than this year, but the number of invitational places would only swing by one or two from year to year.
That would also reduce the incentive of lower tier conferences to try to rig their tournament for an upset, to add an NIT auto-bid to their NCAA auto-bid.
I can't imagine any league HOPING their regular season champ falls in the conference tournament unless they have a really good resume for an at-large.
RE: expanding the NIT? - All Dukes_All Day - 03-17-2014 11:24 AM
(03-17-2014 09:45 AM)bullet Wrote: There's a CIT with 32 teams and CBI with 16. NCAA doesn't promote NIT much. Several hours after the field was announced their official site still didn't have the bracket. Unless your school is invited, you may not have heard of the other two either. CIT doesn't have any P5, AAC, MWC or BE schools. CBI does have Oregon St., Penn St., Texas A&M, Wyoming and Fresno from those conferences.
I don't think the CIT invites P5 schools.
RE: expanding the NIT? - AppfanInCAAland - 03-17-2014 11:31 AM
Instead of expanding the NIT, get rid of the NIT and expand the NCAA to 96 with a 19 or 20 win requirement for eligibility (like bowl eligibility). With a 19 win minimum, pretty much covers everyone in the NIT except Georgetown. Let the rest play in the CIT and CBI.
RE: expanding the NIT? - bullet - 03-17-2014 12:13 PM
(03-17-2014 11:24 AM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:(03-17-2014 09:45 AM)bullet Wrote: There's a CIT with 32 teams and CBI with 16. NCAA doesn't promote NIT much. Several hours after the field was announced their official site still didn't have the bracket. Unless your school is invited, you may not have heard of the other two either. CIT doesn't have any P5, AAC, MWC or BE schools. CBI does have Oregon St., Penn St., Texas A&M, Wyoming and Fresno from those conferences.
I don't think the CIT invites P5 schools.
I know it generally has the non-P5, but I haven't heard what its criteria was. Its really hard to get information about these tourneys unless you look at the web site specifically for these tourneys.
RE: expanding the NIT? - BruceMcF - 03-17-2014 12:49 PM
(03-17-2014 12:13 PM)bullet Wrote: I know it generally has the non-P5, but I haven't heard what its criteria was. Its really hard to get information about these tourneys unless you look at the web site specifically for these tourneys.Or follow conference boards for a single-bid conference, where the two pay-to-host tournaments often represent a majority of teams in post-season play.
CIT is for "mid-majors" not selected for NCAA or NIT, all of which must have winning records ... CIT has 32 teams (up from 24 in 2011). They aren't specific where the dividing line is in their site, but I see Atlantic Sun, Big Sky, Big South, CAA, Horizon, CUSA, Ivy League, Metro Atlantic, MAC, MEAC, MVC, Patriot, SoCon, Southland, SWAC and the Summit represented this year.
The CBI is 16 teams and invites power conference schools if they'll accept the invitation (Texas A&M, Oregon State and Penn State this year), and doesn't have a winning record cut-off ... they include Illinois State at 15-15, ODU at 16-17, Fresno State at 15-16, Tulane at 16-16, Penn State at 15-17, and Siena at 15-17. On their site, they state last 10 games as an explicit selection criteria.
Its more often young teams that take these invitations ... eg, in the MAC, senior-heavy Buffalo is not going, though they would have likely been invited by one or both ... for the extra practices and extra games. You have to win to get on CBSSN, which covers a couple of CBI Quarterfinals and the best of three championship series, and the CIT semifinals and tournament championship game.
RE: expanding the NIT? - arkstfan - 03-17-2014 01:15 PM
(03-17-2014 11:31 AM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote: Instead of expanding the NIT, get rid of the NIT and expand the NCAA to 96 with a 19 or 20 win requirement for eligibility (like bowl eligibility). With a 19 win minimum, pretty much covers everyone in the NIT except Georgetown. Let the rest play in the CIT and CBI.
Right now the NCAA doles out 128 units, a 96 team tournament would be 152 units. That would reduce the value of a unit by 16% unless the revenue goes up enough. Plans that reduce the value of shares and skews the shift to the favor the non-P5 aren't likely to be adopted.
RE: expanding the NIT? - BruceMcF - 03-17-2014 01:22 PM
(03-17-2014 11:31 AM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote: Instead of expanding the NIT, get rid of the NIT and expand the NCAA to 96 with a 19 or 20 win requirement for eligibility (like bowl eligibility). With a 19 win minimum, pretty much covers everyone in the NIT except Georgetown. Let the rest play in the CIT and CBI.Or put the NIT back at 40 with a guaranteed bid based on best regular season record for all one-bid conferences, which would be 22-24 bids, and the rest at-large, and put a winning record requirement on qualifying for post-season tournaments, and stick a fork in the CBI.
After all, the fact that some conferences have a majority of their conference in the NCAA and NIT, and others have either one or two, is the reason for the CIT to exist. There really is no clear reason for a losing-record post-season tournament like the CBI to exist.
RE: expanding the NIT? - stever20 - 03-17-2014 01:22 PM
let's look at going up by 28 schools...
of those 28 schools...
AAC- 1 SMU
A10- 0 though Richmond may have been close
ACC- 2 Clemson, Florida St
B12- 0 though West VA may have been close
BE- 2 for sure St John's, Georgetown. Marquette may have been close
B10- 1 for sure in Minnesota. Illinois and Indiana may have been close
P12- 2 California, Utah
SEC- 4 Georgia, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU
right there is 12 of the 28 schools. 5 more close ones probably in. 17.
This change then I think would skew it more towards the P5 quite frankly. Think of it like this as well- someone like the SWAC, instead of getting 1/128 they'd be getting 1/152.
Oh and by the way, there would be no win minimum. You can count on that.
RE: expanding the NIT? - adcorbett - 03-17-2014 02:14 PM
Didn't the NIT just go down to 32 schools when the NCAA took over? With the other two tourneys, I don't think there is a need to increase either the NIT or NCAA