Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
expanding the NIT?
Author Message
Dracorex Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,051
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation: 68
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #1
expanding the NIT?
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?
03-17-2014 12:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


OrangeCrush22 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,426
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 267
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
Post: #2
RE: expanding the NIT?
I wouldn't mind. There's some good basketball to watch in the NIT.
03-17-2014 01:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,227
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #3
RE: expanding the NIT?
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.
03-17-2014 06:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wleakr Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 679
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Eastern Mich
Location:
Post: #4
RE: expanding the NIT?
(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.
03-17-2014 07:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,227
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #5
RE: expanding the NIT?
(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.
03-17-2014 07:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #6
RE: expanding the NIT?
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.
03-17-2014 08:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,098
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #7
RE: expanding the NIT?
(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.
03-17-2014 09:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 9,477
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #8
RE: expanding the NIT?
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.
03-17-2014 09:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #9
RE: expanding the NIT?
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.
03-17-2014 09:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,098
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #10
RE: expanding the NIT?
(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.
(This post was last modified: 03-17-2014 10:53 AM by BruceMcF.)
03-17-2014 10:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MissouriStateBears Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,625
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 88
I Root For: Missouri State
Location:
Post: #11
RE: expanding the NIT?
(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.
03-17-2014 10:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #12
RE: expanding the NIT?
(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.
03-17-2014 11:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
All Dukes_All Day Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,326
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 62
I Root For: JMU, Pitt
Location:
Post: #13
RE: expanding the NIT?
(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.
03-17-2014 11:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AppfanInCAAland Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,539
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 112
I Root For: App State
Location: Midlothian, VA
Post: #14
RE: expanding the NIT?
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.
(This post was last modified: 03-17-2014 11:32 AM by AppfanInCAAland.)
03-17-2014 11:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #15
RE: expanding the NIT?
(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.
03-17-2014 12:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,098
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #16
RE: expanding the NIT?
(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.
(This post was last modified: 03-17-2014 01:13 PM by BruceMcF.)
03-17-2014 12:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #17
RE: expanding the NIT?
(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.
03-17-2014 01:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,098
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #18
RE: expanding the NIT?
(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.
(This post was last modified: 03-17-2014 01:23 PM by BruceMcF.)
03-17-2014 01:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,227
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #19
RE: expanding the NIT?
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.
03-17-2014 01:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #20
RE: expanding the NIT?
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
03-17-2014 02:14 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.