Imagine a "Memphis 16" put on by the major conferences (probably including the AAC and Big East), where each conference is guaranteed a couple of bids as long as they qualify (maybe the standard is winning record or RPI over 150ish)

Here's 18 teams that could potentially play this year:

RPI Record Team
86 14-15 Stanford
90 17-16 Kansas State
94 19-14 LSU
97 20-12 Ole Miss
100 15-17 Arizona State
103 15-17 UCLA
106 15-18 Georgetown
111 20-13 Marquette
115 20-12 Northwestern
119 16-16 Penn State
123 16-17 NC State
131 17-14 Clemson
133 16-16 Arkansas
139 19-15 Memphis
143 15-19 Tennessee
149 15-19 Illinois
152 14-17 Mississippi State
165 16-18 Nebraska

You probably have a couple decline like Stanford or UCLA, and if necessary you could dip down to teams like Oklahoma State, Auburn, Wake, etc. Or maybe some nearby mid-majors with good records who would bring fans.

If the major conferences put on the tournaments themselves, there'd be no need for pay-for-play, because the conferences could split the revenues of the tournament. That, along with the guarantee that it's all/almost all major conference teams, might get them all to sign up and play.

Also, instead of seeding the bracket, just set up interesting non-conference matchups each round that might draw in some eyeballs. Kansas State-Nebraska, Northwestern-Marquette, Tennessee-Memphis, etc.

Any chance an idea like this could be successful? I picked Memphis because it seems equidistant from all the major conferences except the Pac-12.[/php]

That'd be as interesting as the CBI...

Do we have any evidence (quotes from ADs, media types) that majors are avoiding CBI/CIT because they don't want to play Northwest Podunk State and maybe lose, or because they just don't want to play in rinky-dink, pay-to-play tournaments?

Basketball isn't football--a coach who goes 17-15 at Ole Miss or Minnesota or St Johns isn't going to keep or lose his job based on losing in the CBI or CIT.

I'm guessing that the $30,000 entry fee is a bigger factor than playing Mississippi Valley State instead of Mississippi State. (Not that $30,000 is going to break a major program, but if the benefits aren't there, then you don't spend.)

John...frankly it might be better expand the NIT and have 8 play in games.

OTOH I do like the Vegas 16 concept though...maybe FOX or NBC could televise it. Four straight days of hoops.

I suspect the NCAA would rather keep either the CBI or CIT or something alive, so they don't have to worry about antitrust issues. Expand the NIT, and you might kill off all of the lower-tier tournaments.

I think those lower tournaments will eventually die off anyway. At least one of them. I believe the few Valley teams that were eligible for them have declined to participate as well. They can serve a purpose for some young teams I suppose but nobody gets excited about them. And some of these smaller schools lose money playing in them.

Frankly, it wouldn't hurt my feelings if all post season tournaments except the NCAA were eliminated. The players who play in them have already missed a lot of class time, and missing even more to play in a meaningless tournament makes no sense to me.

The other tournaments will have to probably work their financial structure to attract teams and work on tv coverage money.

The problem is teams have to pay to play in those crummy tournaments. I heard UNLV didn't even want to play in the Vegas 16 because they would have to pay for each game. NIT is fine, but below that why bother?

(03-15-2016 09:01 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Do we have any evidence (quotes from ADs, media types) that majors are avoiding CBI/CIT because they don't want to play Northwest Podunk State and maybe lose, or because they just don't want to play in rinky-dink, pay-to-play tournaments?

Basketball isn't football--a coach who goes 17-15 at Ole Miss or Minnesota or St Johns isn't going to keep or lose his job based on losing in the CBI or CIT.

I'm guessing that the $30,000 entry fee is a bigger factor than playing Mississippi Valley State instead of Mississippi State. (Not that $30,000 is going to break a major program, but if the benefits aren't there, then you don't spend.)

The CBI and CIT are more expensive than that, if you win. You have to pay the tournament organizers for every home game you get, and you have to pay your own travel costs for every road game.

You're right that winning games in postseason tournaments other than the NCAA doesn't necessarily give a basketball coach more job security in the way that a bowl game helps a football coach. Stanford just fired a coach who won the NIT twice, including last season. The message seems to be, this is a major-conference job and you make a million dollars a year, so one NCAA appearance in eight seasons isn't good enough, no matter what you do in the NIT or CBI.

Elsewhere I proposed an 88 team NCAAT field, in which the bottom 20 conferences would get 32 teams. Those 32 would play the first two rounds the week before the larger conferences join the field. Only the 8 who come out of those two rounds move on to round out the field of 64.

The little guys would have more teams than they currently get in both the NCAAT and NIT combined. The top 10 conferences would have 8 more NCAAT bids. That would allow the NIT to be basically a majors only tournament, and there would still be plenty of good teams available to fill a nice 32 team field.

With 120 teams combined in these two tourneys, you really don't need any more.

In that format you're also allowing more average at best teams an advantage over better teams from weaker conferences. I think the year WSU got a 1 seed the MVC was outside the top 10 in conference RPI and your format would send them into some BS play in tournament. Same with Gonzaga a few years ago and I'm sure there are other examples. Last year alone the MVC had 2 top 25 teams that would have been punished because the rest of the conference scheduled poorly and would leave them outside of the top 10. But you'd give a team that couldn't even finish .500 in their conference a pass just because they play in the Big 10 or SEC or whatever?

(03-15-2016 01:36 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  In that format you're also allowing more average at best teams an advantage over better teams from weaker conferences. I think the year WSU got a 1 seed the MVC was outside the top 10 in conference RPI and your format would send them into some BS play in tournament. Same with Gonzaga a few years ago and I'm sure there are other examples. Last year alone the MVC had 2 top 25 teams that would have been punished because the rest of the conference scheduled poorly and would leave them outside of the top 10. But you'd give a team that couldn't even finish .500 in their conference a pass just because they play in the Big 10 or SEC or whatever?

The weaker conferences now get 20 teams in the field, most of them matched against the top 16 teams in the first round. Under my format, only the 8 best would be in the field of 64, some of which would be seeded in the 10-13 range where they have a legitimate shot at advancing than they do now. There would also be a much greater chance that a #1 seed would fall in the opening round, as opposed to no chance today.

(03-15-2016 01:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 01:36 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  In that format you're also allowing more average at best teams an advantage over better teams from weaker conferences. I think the year WSU got a 1 seed the MVC was outside the top 10 in conference RPI and your format would send them into some BS play in tournament. Same with Gonzaga a few years ago and I'm sure there are other examples. Last year alone the MVC had 2 top 25 teams that would have been punished because the rest of the conference scheduled poorly and would leave them outside of the top 10. But you'd give a team that couldn't even finish .500 in their conference a pass just because they play in the Big 10 or SEC or whatever?

The weaker conferences now get 20 teams in the field, most of them matched against the top 16 teams in the first round. Under my format, only the 8 best would be in the field of 64, some of which would be seeded in the 10-13 range where they have a legitimate shot at advancing than they do now. There would also be a much greater chance that a #1 seed would fall in the opening round, as opposed to no chance today.

So you're OK with making a top 25 team, or a few, play in this play in weekend because they come from conferences that are a little weaker? So instead of them being a 1-5 seed, which can and has happened, you'd give them a chance to be a 13-16 seed and give them worse chances of advancing?

My 96 team field:

1)RS Champs get bye
2)Tournament Champs higher seed (if tournament champ earned bye, loser of title game in this slot)

No.

(03-15-2016 11:38 AM)CyclonePower Wrote:  The problem is teams have to pay to play in those crummy tournaments. I heard UNLV didn't even want to play in the Vegas 16 because they would have to pay for each game. NIT is fine, but below that why bother?

I'm with ya. If my hogs couldn't sneak into the NIT, why punish everybody with some more meaningless games. Just let the programs and fans move on to next season.

(03-15-2016 03:27 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  My 96 team field:

1)RS Champs get bye
2)Tournament Champs higher seed (if tournament champ earned bye, loser of title game in this slot)

  ImageUploadedByCSNbbs1458111207.878163.jpg (Size: 114.24 KB / Downloads: 11)

(03-15-2016 03:27 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  My 96 team field:

1)RS Champs get bye
2)Tournament Champs higher seed (if tournament champ earned bye, loser of title game in this slot)

If the intention is to make the regular season more meaningful, when the regular season champion wins the tourney, the regular season number 2 slots in as the second school from the conference.

(03-16-2016 01:22 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 11:38 AM)CyclonePower Wrote:  The problem is teams have to pay to play in those crummy tournaments. I heard UNLV didn't even want to play in the Vegas 16 because they would have to pay for each game. NIT is fine, but below that why bother?

I'm with ya. If my hogs couldn't sneak into the NIT, why punish everybody with some more meaningless games. Just let the programs and fans move on to next season.

They can be useful to younger teams ... but three pay to play postseason BBall tournaments is at least one too many. Hopefully the CBI folds it's tent before next season, since what sets it apart from the CIT is that it invites major conference programs ... so if schools from major programs have no interest in playing in it, it doesn't really have any special reason for existing.

Bruce: you're of course correct that that is the better way to go.