LMU Pays to Play

Loyola Marymount paid $31k to play host in the tourney!

From the article: If the Lions defeat Pacific, they would face an opponent to be named later because there are no brackets in the second-year tournament. CIT officials determine the matchups in each subsequent round prior to the championship.

This tourney is a sham!

(03-17-2010 08:27 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  LMU Pays to Play

Loyola Marymount paid $31k to play host in the tourney!

From the article: If the Lions defeat Pacific, they would face an opponent to be named later because there are no brackets in the second-year tournament. CIT officials determine the matchups in each subsequent round prior to the championship.

This tourney is a sham!

Not really a big sham, the CBI you have to pay $60k to host a game. The NCAA used to require D-1AA teams to bid (pay money) to host games.

(03-17-2010 09:11 AM)KnightChris Wrote:  Also from the article:

Quote: It will mark the Lions' first postseason appearance since their Hank Gathers-inspired run to the NCAA tournament's Elite Eight 20 years ago, and it's generating at least a little buzz on a campus that typically has an empty feeling this time of year.

"There's a little swagger and a bounce in people's steps," said Athletic Director Bill Husak, who added that there was no hesitation about paying the five-figure hosting fee.

"I think that shows the support we have," Good said. "They wanted to do it as a reward for the season we had and to parlay it into something for the future."

It my mind, that's the real point, and precisely why these tournaments are NOT a joke. I would rather see more attention paid to the NIT/CBI/CIT than see the NCAA tournament expanded. In fact, I'd like to see the elimination of the play-in game and have a real "field of 64." Giving these kids an extra week or two to play a game they love in the CIT doesn't hurt the NCAA's, and it improves the college experience for the students at those schools, so I say "why not?"

Agreed although its just like the number of bowls. Granted I'm happy to have a large number of bowl games. Perhaps 34 or whatever its at this coming season is too high but I think around 25 would be perfect as we'd reward the Top 50 of the 120 1-A teams (at least in theory.)

However I wish each regional bracket had a play-in game for 68 teams. I also think they should make the NIT 48 teams and give the 1 - 4 seeds an opening round bye. At that point we've got 116 teams in the post-season which I feel somewhat negates the need for both the CBI and the CIT. At the very least it forces one of the two out of business and puts more teams in the established tournaments where the student-athletes get a true taste for post-season basketball.

My comments we kinda of said in jest...not much difference than these tournies (BBI and CIT) and the min payout bowl games. I suppose they serve a purpose for some up and coming teams.

(03-17-2010 10:05 AM)KnightChris Wrote:  I just hate byes on general principle... and I loathe play-in games since they're normally sold as "a great way to get in one more mid-major!" when really all they do is get in one more Big 6 conference team, and then relegate a mid-major that was ALREADY in to a play-in game. It's a great way to invite someone to the party, but then make them stand outside the window while they're there.

I think the play-in games should add three more. Have a play-in game to play each #1 seed, not just one. Include more bubble teams (this year you could add Mississippi State, Va Tech, Illinois, etc.) to fill those spots.

(03-17-2010 02:07 PM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  

(03-17-2010 10:05 AM)KnightChris Wrote:  I just hate byes on general principle... and I loathe play-in games since they're normally sold as "a great way to get in one more mid-major!" when really all they do is get in one more Big 6 conference team, and then relegate a mid-major that was ALREADY in to a play-in game. It's a great way to invite someone to the party, but then make them stand outside the window while they're there.

I think the play-in games should add three more. Have a play-in game to play each #1 seed, not just one. Include more bubble teams (this year you could add Mississippi State, Va Tech, Illinois, etc.) to fill those spots.

This is the only type of NCAA Tournament expansion that I'd ever agree to. The main upside to the 4 play-in games is that you're going to get better teams playing the #1 seeds and that flows down through the rest of the field (the #2 seeds also have slightly tougher opponents and so on).

(03-17-2010 02:20 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-17-2010 02:07 PM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  

(03-17-2010 10:05 AM)KnightChris Wrote:  I just hate byes on general principle... and I loathe play-in games since they're normally sold as "a great way to get in one more mid-major!" when really all they do is get in one more Big 6 conference team, and then relegate a mid-major that was ALREADY in to a play-in game. It's a great way to invite someone to the party, but then make them stand outside the window while they're there.

I think the play-in games should add three more. Have a play-in game to play each #1 seed, not just one. Include more bubble teams (this year you could add Mississippi State, Va Tech, Illinois, etc.) to fill those spots.

This is the only type of NCAA Tournament expansion that I'd ever agree to. The main upside to the 4 play-in games is that you're going to get better teams playing the #1 seeds and that flows down through the rest of the field (the #2 seeds also have slightly tougher opponents and so on).

That's true. You'd be left with the best 4 out of what is currently the 5 #16's and 3 #15 seeds. So, in theory most of the 1 seeds would be playing a team that would have been a 15 seed in previous seasons.

(03-17-2010 09:11 AM)uvaeer Wrote:  The NCAA used to require D-1AA teams to bid (pay money) to host games.

That's still how it works. In the FCS playoffs, the top 4 seeds are guaranteed home games, but they still have to pay a minimum fee (I think it's around $30k). Everyone else bids for home games with no set limits. The fees are used in part to offset the costs for the visiting teams. Travel costs for a football team with less than a week's notice are expensive.

(03-17-2010 03:00 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  

(03-17-2010 09:11 AM)uvaeer Wrote:  The NCAA used to require D-1AA teams to bid (pay money) to host games.

That's still how it works. In the FCS playoffs, the top 4 seeds are guaranteed home games, but they still have to pay a minimum fee (I think it's around $30k). Everyone else bids for home games with no set limits. The fees are used in part to offset the costs for the visiting teams. Travel costs for a football team with less than a week's notice are expensive.

forget about the fcs, if the beast gets raided you guys will be in the beast, so forget about the fcs for now!!!!!!!!!

(03-17-2010 10:12 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  My comments we kinda of said in jest...not much difference than these tournies (BBI and CIT) and the min payout bowl games. I suppose they serve a purpose for some up and coming teams.

I think us playing UCLA in D.C. is just a little bit better than Pacific playing Loyola Marymount...

(03-17-2010 03:32 PM)Stookey57 Wrote:  

(03-17-2010 03:00 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  

(03-17-2010 09:11 AM)uvaeer Wrote:  The NCAA used to require D-1AA teams to bid (pay money) to host games.

That's still how it works. In the FCS playoffs, the top 4 seeds are guaranteed home games, but they still have to pay a minimum fee (I think it's around $30k). Everyone else bids for home games with no set limits. The fees are used in part to offset the costs for the visiting teams. Travel costs for a football team with less than a week's notice are expensive.

forget about the fcs, if the beast gets raided you guys will be in the beast, so forget about the fcs for now!!!!!!!!!

Sadly that's not how it is. If the Big East gets raided, it will need replacement FBS teams immediately, or it will lose its status as a FBS conference (minimum 8 FBS members required) and its spot in the BCS. Any FCS program that moves to FBS goes through 2 years of provisional status before it counts as a FBS team, plus there's a moratorium on moves until the 2012 cycle. So the earliest UMass or any other FCS member will be a counter for FBS conference standing is 2014. Whatever is going to happen to the Big East is probably going to happen long before then, so we're out. We'll have to continue worrying about making the FCS playoffs. (And the CIT, for that matter.)