http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/sports...d=tw-share

New York Times article.

Great championship game for the tournament.

(03-29-2016 01:14 PM)Chuck_A Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 12:59 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  If this one isn't a complete financial disaster. 8 teams instead of 16 means half the entry fees.

Not sure how much the deposit on the arena for the planned round one was, or the deposit on the hotel room packages for 8 schools who aren't there are, compared to the event's revenues.

Yeah, they'll take a hit this season. But since they run other pre-conference tourneys, they should be okay for now. All it takes is one "name" mid-major or high major to step up and not be worried about THEIR egos (i.e., the AD's and HC's, because it's about the young men playing in a postseason game) then they'll have a full compliment of 16 teams.

I watched the games. Yeah, they were playing in a canyon, but there was basketball being played that I could see on TV and it wasn't ALL about the High Majors. Some others will see it and take a chance on it.

that tourney is a joke...expand the NIT and put the CBI/CIT/Vegas16err 8 out of business.

If you expand the NIT, you take away what little prestige it has left and it gets totally overshadowed by the NCAA Tournament because there's at least one more round. Then again, I don't see the point in having not 1, not 2 but 3 different postseason tournaments besides the NIT, so you may be onto something. Scrap the CBI and CIT and then, because it's like a bowl, keep the Vegas 16.

(04-01-2016 05:17 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  If you expand the NIT, you take away what little prestige it has left and it gets totally overshadowed by the NCAA Tournament because there's at least one more round. Then again, I don't see the point in having not 1, not 2 but 3 different postseason tournaments besides the NIT, so you may be onto something. Scrap the CBI and CIT and then, because it's like a bowl, keep the Vegas 16.

the NIT earned it's prestige decades ago...expanding it would have zero effect on that...of course, you're anti-NIT as you stated in my thread.

"No one is gonna be watching the NIT anyways except college hoops diehards, so who cares?"

you don't get to 'scrap' the CBI, CIT, or Vegas however many...but you can drive em out of business...expanding the NIT would do that.

(04-01-2016 07:23 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 05:17 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  If you expand the NIT, you take away what little prestige it has left and it gets totally overshadowed by the NCAA Tournament because there's at least one more round. Then again, I don't see the point in having not 1, not 2 but 3 different postseason tournaments besides the NIT, so you may be onto something. Scrap the CBI and CIT and then, because it's like a bowl, keep the Vegas 16.

the NIT earned it's prestige decades ago...expanding it would have zero effect on that...of course, you're anti-NIT as you stated in my thread.

"No one is gonna be watching the NIT anyways except college hoops diehards, so who cares?"

you don't get to 'scrap' the CBI, CIT, or Vegas however many...but you can drive em out of business...expanding the NIT would do that.

It would also likely lead to a lawsuit against the NCAA for monopolistic practices similar to the NIT lawsuit

(04-01-2016 07:30 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 07:23 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 05:17 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  If you expand the NIT, you take away what little prestige it has left and it gets totally overshadowed by the NCAA Tournament because there's at least one more round. Then again, I don't see the point in having not 1, not 2 but 3 different postseason tournaments besides the NIT, so you may be onto something. Scrap the CBI and CIT and then, because it's like a bowl, keep the Vegas 16.

the NIT earned it's prestige decades ago...expanding it would have zero effect on that...of course, you're anti-NIT as you stated in my thread.

"No one is gonna be watching the NIT anyways except college hoops diehards, so who cares?"

you don't get to 'scrap' the CBI, CIT, or Vegas however many...but you can drive em out of business...expanding the NIT would do that.

It would also likely lead to a lawsuit against the NCAA for monopolistic practices similar to the NIT lawsuit

not if they shut down due to lack of interest...they could always change their business model to paying teams to play like he NIT or NCAA tourney...but they won't, because they don't have the money.

but you can't ban them...THAT would likely lead to a lawsuit against the NCAA for monopolistic practices

but you sure as hell can run em out of business via good ole capitalism.

There would be enough teams that turned those small tournaments down that the NIT could expand to 64 and 2 of those 3 would survive..

(04-01-2016 07:34 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 07:30 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 07:23 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 05:17 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  If you expand the NIT, you take away what little prestige it has left and it gets totally overshadowed by the NCAA Tournament because there's at least one more round. Then again, I don't see the point in having not 1, not 2 but 3 different postseason tournaments besides the NIT, so you may be onto something. Scrap the CBI and CIT and then, because it's like a bowl, keep the Vegas 16.

the NIT earned it's prestige decades ago...expanding it would have zero effect on that...of course, you're anti-NIT as you stated in my thread.

"No one is gonna be watching the NIT anyways except college hoops diehards, so who cares?"

you don't get to 'scrap' the CBI, CIT, or Vegas however many...but you can drive em out of business...expanding the NIT would do that.

It would also likely lead to a lawsuit against the NCAA for monopolistic practices similar to the NIT lawsuit

not if they shut down due to lack of interest...they could always change their business model to paying teams to play like he NIT or NCAA tourney...but they won't, because they don't have the money.

but you can't ban them...THAT would likely lead to a lawsuit against the NCAA for monopolistic practices

but you sure as hell can run em out of business via good ole capitalism.

The NCAA bought the NIT because of the risk they would lose the lawsuit for just that, running the NIT out of business. A monopolist in a market segment is very vulnerable under anti-trust law.

If the NCAA expanded the NIT, and then the CBI And CIT folded for lack of teams, the CBI and CIT promoters would have a lawsuit that could be worth more than the value of the CBI and CIT, depending on how lucky they get in court and exactly how you value the CBI and CIT.

NCAA is smarter to say "Naaah, we're good."

Single-site tournaments like the Vegas 16 or 8 (or none if they took too big a bath) are a bigger threat to the CBI/CIT.

(04-01-2016 07:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 07:34 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 07:30 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 07:23 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 05:17 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  If you expand the NIT, you take away what little prestige it has left and it gets totally overshadowed by the NCAA Tournament because there's at least one more round. Then again, I don't see the point in having not 1, not 2 but 3 different postseason tournaments besides the NIT, so you may be onto something. Scrap the CBI and CIT and then, because it's like a bowl, keep the Vegas 16.

the NIT earned it's prestige decades ago...expanding it would have zero effect on that...of course, you're anti-NIT as you stated in my thread.

"No one is gonna be watching the NIT anyways except college hoops diehards, so who cares?"

you don't get to 'scrap' the CBI, CIT, or Vegas however many...but you can drive em out of business...expanding the NIT would do that.

It would also likely lead to a lawsuit against the NCAA for monopolistic practices similar to the NIT lawsuit

not if they shut down due to lack of interest...they could always change their business model to paying teams to play like he NIT or NCAA tourney...but they won't, because they don't have the money.

but you can't ban them...THAT would likely lead to a lawsuit against the NCAA for monopolistic practices

but you sure as hell can run em out of business via good ole capitalism.

The NCAA bought the NIT because of the risk they would lose the lawsuit for just that, running the NIT out of business. A monopolist in a market segment is very vulnerable under anti-trust law.

If the NCAA expanded the NIT, and then the CBI And CIT folded for lack of teams, the CBI and CIT promoters would have a lawsuit that could be worth more than the value of the CBI and CIT, depending on how lucky they get in court and exactly how you value the CBI and CIT.

NCAA is smarter to say "Naaah, we're good."

Single-site tournaments like the Vegas 16 or 8 (or none if they took too big a bath) are a bigger threat to the CBI/CIT.

the CBI, CIT, and Vegas whatever proves it's not a monopoly...if those tourneys exist, and no one accepts the bids...that's not a monopoly.

(04-01-2016 07:43 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 07:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 07:34 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 07:30 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 07:23 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  the NIT earned it's prestige decades ago...expanding it would have zero effect on that...of course, you're anti-NIT as you stated in my thread.

"No one is gonna be watching the NIT anyways except college hoops diehards, so who cares?"

you don't get to 'scrap' the CBI, CIT, or Vegas however many...but you can drive em out of business...expanding the NIT would do that.

It would also likely lead to a lawsuit against the NCAA for monopolistic practices similar to the NIT lawsuit

not if they shut down due to lack of interest...they could always change their business model to paying teams to play like he NIT or NCAA tourney...but they won't, because they don't have the money.

but you can't ban them...THAT would likely lead to a lawsuit against the NCAA for monopolistic practices

but you sure as hell can run em out of business via good ole capitalism.

The NCAA bought the NIT because of the risk they would lose the lawsuit for just that, running the NIT out of business. A monopolist in a market segment is very vulnerable under anti-trust law.

If the NCAA expanded the NIT, and then the CBI And CIT folded for lack of teams, the CBI and CIT promoters would have a lawsuit that could be worth more than the value of the CBI and CIT, depending on how lucky they get in court and exactly how you value the CBI and CIT.

NCAA is smarter to say "Naaah, we're good."

Single-site tournaments like the Vegas 16 or 8 (or none if they took too big a bath) are a bigger threat to the CBI/CIT.

the CBI, CIT, and Vegas whatever proves it's not a monopoly...if those tourneys exist, and no one accepts the bids...that's not a monopoly.

But if they STOP existing, because the NCAA's tournaments suck up all the schools who want to play, then it is.

Which is why the NCAA wants to keep some minor tourneys around.

(04-01-2016 08:44 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 07:43 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 07:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 07:34 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 07:30 AM)solohawks Wrote:  It would also likely lead to a lawsuit against the NCAA for monopolistic practices similar to the NIT lawsuit

not if they shut down due to lack of interest...they could always change their business model to paying teams to play like he NIT or NCAA tourney...but they won't, because they don't have the money.

but you can't ban them...THAT would likely lead to a lawsuit against the NCAA for monopolistic practices

but you sure as hell can run em out of business via good ole capitalism.

The NCAA bought the NIT because of the risk they would lose the lawsuit for just that, running the NIT out of business. A monopolist in a market segment is very vulnerable under anti-trust law.

If the NCAA expanded the NIT, and then the CBI And CIT folded for lack of teams, the CBI and CIT promoters would have a lawsuit that could be worth more than the value of the CBI and CIT, depending on how lucky they get in court and exactly how you value the CBI and CIT.

NCAA is smarter to say "Naaah, we're good."

Single-site tournaments like the Vegas 16 or 8 (or none if they took too big a bath) are a bigger threat to the CBI/CIT.

the CBI, CIT, and Vegas whatever proves it's not a monopoly...if those tourneys exist, and no one accepts the bids...that's not a monopoly.

But if they STOP existing, because the NCAA's tournaments suck up all the schools who want to play, then it is.

Which is why the NCAA wants to keep some minor tourneys around.

not if the schools made that choice to not accept their invites...they (CBI, CIT) could still exist...they've proven it...but when it's not financially viable, you close...it's not a monopoly because those other tourneys could exist of they wanted to, but they chose not to lose money.

that's not a monopoly...that said, the NIT seems to be in no rush to expand.

(04-01-2016 09:16 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 08:44 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 07:43 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 07:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 07:34 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  not if they shut down due to lack of interest...they could always change their business model to paying teams to play like he NIT or NCAA tourney...but they won't, because they don't have the money.

but you can't ban them...THAT would likely lead to a lawsuit against the NCAA for monopolistic practices

but you sure as hell can run em out of business via good ole capitalism.

The NCAA bought the NIT because of the risk they would lose the lawsuit for just that, running the NIT out of business. A monopolist in a market segment is very vulnerable under anti-trust law.

If the NCAA expanded the NIT, and then the CBI And CIT folded for lack of teams, the CBI and CIT promoters would have a lawsuit that could be worth more than the value of the CBI and CIT, depending on how lucky they get in court and exactly how you value the CBI and CIT.

NCAA is smarter to say "Naaah, we're good."

Single-site tournaments like the Vegas 16 or 8 (or none if they took too big a bath) are a bigger threat to the CBI/CIT.

the CBI, CIT, and Vegas whatever proves it's not a monopoly...if those tourneys exist, and no one accepts the bids...that's not a monopoly.

But if they STOP existing, because the NCAA's tournaments suck up all the schools who want to play, then it is.

Which is why the NCAA wants to keep some minor tourneys around.

not if the schools made that choice to not accept their invites...they (CBI, CIT) could still exist...they've proven it...but when it's not financially viable, you close...it's not a monopoly because those other tourneys could exist of they wanted to, but they chose not to lose money.

that's not a monopoly...that said, the NIT seems to be in no rush to expand.

Under antitrust law, just having a monopoly pretty much makes you guilty. IF you apparently DO something to acquire a monopoly, you're dogfood.

(04-01-2016 07:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 07:34 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 07:30 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 07:23 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 05:17 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  If you expand the NIT, you take away what little prestige it has left and it gets totally overshadowed by the NCAA Tournament because there's at least one more round. Then again, I don't see the point in having not 1, not 2 but 3 different postseason tournaments besides the NIT, so you may be onto something. Scrap the CBI and CIT and then, because it's like a bowl, keep the Vegas 16.

the NIT earned it's prestige decades ago...expanding it would have zero effect on that...of course, you're anti-NIT as you stated in my thread.

"No one is gonna be watching the NIT anyways except college hoops diehards, so who cares?"

you don't get to 'scrap' the CBI, CIT, or Vegas however many...but you can drive em out of business...expanding the NIT would do that.

It would also likely lead to a lawsuit against the NCAA for monopolistic practices similar to the NIT lawsuit

not if they shut down due to lack of interest...they could always change their business model to paying teams to play like he NIT or NCAA tourney...but they won't, because they don't have the money.

but you can't ban them...THAT would likely lead to a lawsuit against the NCAA for monopolistic practices

but you sure as hell can run em out of business via good ole capitalism.

The NCAA bought the NIT because of the risk they would lose the lawsuit for just that, running the NIT out of business. A monopolist in a market segment is very vulnerable under anti-trust law.

If the NCAA expanded the NIT, and then the CBI And CIT folded for lack of teams, the CBI and CIT promoters would have a lawsuit that could be worth more than the value of the CBI and CIT, depending on how lucky they get in court and exactly how you value the CBI and CIT.

NCAA is smarter to say "Naaah, we're good."

Single-site tournaments like the Vegas 16 or 8 (or none if they took too big a bath) are a bigger threat to the CBI/CIT.

That's where I see it going. NCAA, NIT, then 8-team tournaments in Vegas, New Orleans and somewhere in the Southeast (Miami? Orlando? Myrtle Beach?)