Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
No Vegas 16 in '17
Author Message
chargeradio Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,192
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 58
I Root For: ALA, KY, USA
Location: Louisville, KY
Post: #11
RE: No Vegas 16 in '17
With 32 conferences, there could be 4 16-team third tier tournaments (conferences have 2 bids unless otherwise noted):

Las Vegas - WAC, WCC, Big West, Big Sky, Pac 12, MWC, Summit (1 team), Big 12 (1 team), Southland (1 team), C-USA (1 team)
Hartford - NEC, AEC, MAAC, Patriot, CAA (1 team), ACC (1 team), MEAC, Ivy, Big East (1 team), A-10 (1 team)
Nashville - Big South, A-Sun, ACC (1 team), CAA (1 team), SEC, SBC, C-USA (1 team), Southland (1 team), SoCon, SWAC
Chicago - AAC, OVC, Big 10, Big 12 (1 team), Summit (1 team), MAC, Horizon, MVC, A-10 (1 team), Big East (1 team)

With the NCAA and NIT, that would be a total of 164 teams in postseason play, slightly less than half of the 351 teams currently in Division I.
03-15-2017 08:10 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,783
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 86
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #12
RE: No Vegas 16 in '17
(03-15-2017 08:10 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  With 32 conferences, there could be 4 16-team third tier tournaments (conferences have 2 bids unless otherwise noted):

Las Vegas - WAC, WCC, Big West, Big Sky, Pac 12, MWC, Summit (1 team), Big 12 (1 team), Southland (1 team), C-USA (1 team)
Hartford - NEC, AEC, MAAC, Patriot, CAA (1 team), ACC (1 team), MEAC, Ivy, Big East (1 team), A-10 (1 team)
Nashville - Big South, A-Sun, ACC (1 team), CAA (1 team), SEC, SBC, C-USA (1 team), Southland (1 team), SoCon, SWAC
Chicago - AAC, OVC, Big 10, Big 12 (1 team), Summit (1 team), MAC, Horizon, MVC, A-10 (1 team), Big East (1 team)

With the NCAA and NIT, that would be a total of 164 teams in postseason play, slightly less than half of the 351 teams currently in Division I.
The question is whether there would be that much interest in playing in a third tier post-season tournament ... with 16 in the CBI and 26 in the CIT, and the LV16 "on hiatus", that was only interest from 42 schools this year.

And while the CBI is supposed to be open to teams from "power" conferences, only three of the 16 come from multi-bid NCAA conferences ... two from the A10, one from the WCC. Getting an open-ended commitment from the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, SEC, Big12 or PAC12 for even one team would seem to be difficult, when none of them seem very interested in taking third tier tournament spots that are theirs for the taking right now.

Three tournaments, each with eight commitments and eight at large spots, with the contract conferences having first call on a second spot, might give a threshold of confidence that the tournament would go ahead, and enough flexibility to make it worthwhile making the commitment. If all three got up, that would kill off the CBI and likely the CIT as well.

Say:

Las Vegas - WCC, WAC, Big West, Big Sky, MWC, Summit, Southland, MVC

Nashville: AAC, CUSA, SBC, MAC, SoCon, OVC, Horizon, SWAC

Hartford: A10, NEC, AEC, MAAC, Patriot, CAA, MEAC, Ivy
03-16-2017 02:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,991
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 224
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #13
RE: No Vegas 16 in '17
(03-16-2017 02:16 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(03-15-2017 08:10 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  With 32 conferences, there could be 4 16-team third tier tournaments (conferences have 2 bids unless otherwise noted):

Las Vegas - WAC, WCC, Big West, Big Sky, Pac 12, MWC, Summit (1 team), Big 12 (1 team), Southland (1 team), C-USA (1 team)
Hartford - NEC, AEC, MAAC, Patriot, CAA (1 team), ACC (1 team), MEAC, Ivy, Big East (1 team), A-10 (1 team)
Nashville - Big South, A-Sun, ACC (1 team), CAA (1 team), SEC, SBC, C-USA (1 team), Southland (1 team), SoCon, SWAC
Chicago - AAC, OVC, Big 10, Big 12 (1 team), Summit (1 team), MAC, Horizon, MVC, A-10 (1 team), Big East (1 team)

With the NCAA and NIT, that would be a total of 164 teams in postseason play, slightly less than half of the 351 teams currently in Division I.
The question is whether there would be that much interest in playing in a third tier post-season tournament ... with 16 in the CBI and 26 in the CIT, and the LV16 "on hiatus", that was only interest from 42 schools this year.

And while the CBI is supposed to be open to teams from "power" conferences, only three of the 16 come from multi-bid NCAA conferences ... two from the A10, one from the WCC. Getting an open-ended commitment from the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, SEC, Big12 or PAC12 for even one team would seem to be difficult, when none of them seem very interested in taking third tier tournament spots that are theirs for the taking right now.

Three tournaments, each with eight commitments and eight at large spots, with the contract conferences having first call on a second spot, might give a threshold of confidence that the tournament would go ahead, and enough flexibility to make it worthwhile making the commitment. If all three got up, that would kill off the CBI and likely the CIT as well.

Say:

Las Vegas - WCC, WAC, Big West, Big Sky, MWC, Summit, Southland, MVC

Nashville: AAC, CUSA, SBC, MAC, SoCon, OVC, Horizon, SWAC

Hartford: A10, NEC, AEC, MAAC, Patriot, CAA, MEAC, Ivy

This year, the ACC couldn't have sent anybody to a tourney other than the NCAA or the NIT. There were only three teams not invited to one of those, and they all had losing records.

It's hard for me to see much value in these new tourneys like the CIT and CBI. Is one considered a step above the other, or does nobody care? I know I couldn't name a single team in either of them. And once the NCAAT starts, who is watching them besides family and friends?

Maybe they could be repurposed by having four 8 team regionals with all the one-bid conference regular season and conference tournament champs and at-larges playing the week before the Big Dance. Two teams from each of these regionals could earn their way into the NCAAT..
03-17-2017 10:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Online
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 15,807
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 330
I Root For: Houston
Location: Near Seawall Town
Post: #14
RE: No Vegas 16 in '17
FTR the CBI is considered better than the CIT. The Vegas 16 is a wild card because it's so new. We have yet to see what kind of niche it can carve.
03-17-2017 01:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DoubleRSU Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 76
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation: 1
I Root For: SU, WAC
Location:
Post: #15
RE: No Vegas 16 in '17
(03-17-2017 01:07 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  FTR the CBI is considered better than the CIT. The Vegas 16 is a wild card because it's so new. We have yet to see what kind of niche it can carve.

It didn't carve any niche. That's why they're not having it or even planned to have it this year. They did not book an arena. They are done.
03-17-2017 04:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,783
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 86
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #16
RE: No Vegas 16 in '17
(03-17-2017 04:21 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  
(03-17-2017 01:07 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  FTR the CBI is considered better than the CIT. The Vegas 16 is a wild card because it's so new. We have yet to see what kind of niche it can carve.

It didn't carve any niche. That's why they're not having it or even planned to have it this year. They did not book an arena. They are done.
Yeah, it looks like their original model fell over. Hence the preceding discussion about a different model, which commitments from conferences to send a school. I'd still think that it would need to be paired with a commitment to accept a second school, if one is interested, in order to get up, which implies eight "conference nominated" schools, eight at-large picks, with nominating conferences get first crack.

(03-17-2017 10:02 AM)ken d Wrote:  This year, the ACC couldn't have sent anybody to a tourney other than the NCAA or the NIT. There were only three teams not invited to one of those, and they all had losing records.
The CBI does not actually require a winning record, but you'd need to have a young team that started to get in gear mid-season to want to go to the post-season after a losing season.

Need a winning record to go to the CIT, but it's not open to power conference schools. It was original established, explicitly designed and still primarily serves a role for mid-major conference who have much fewer opportunities for post-season play and some teams every year who think that it might be beneficial experience.

Quote: It's hard for me to see much value in these new tourneys like the CIT and CBI. Is one considered a step above the other, or does nobody care?
The CBI would generally be considered a step above the CIT ... the presence of three schools from multi-bid conferences (through none from the power six, unlike some previous years) is obviously not just because the CBI is open to those conferences, but also because they accepted the invite. Now, the absence of any power conference schools may indicate that it's limited cachet is waning, but it could just be that the none of the teams who'd consider it got left out of the NIT.

The reason for the CIT's existence is the limited opportunities for post-season play for schools in single-bid conferences ... who often don't won't get an NIT at-large bid either, so will only get two in the NCAA/NIT if their regular season champion gets knocked out of the tourney and takes an NIT autobid.

As far as the reason for the CBI's existence, I couldn't give you one. With less interest in the CBI from multi-bid conferences than in some previous years, it's been relying more heavily on the same conferences that the CIT was created for ... hence the CIT only getting 26 schools into 32 slots.

As far as additional game time and additional experience in knock-out tournament play for young teams in conferences that often get no at-large bids from either the NCAA or the NIT, the CIT alone would be enough to play that role. But the CIT cannot shoulder the mostly obsolete CBI aside, so long as the CBI continues to attract teams from the second tier of multi-bid conferences. And the CBI might have trouble expanding to 24 teams with the top eight seeded, since getting schools to pay to host the first game only to be guaranteed to be playing on the road in the second might be difficult.

Quote: Maybe they could be repurposed by having four 8 team regionals with all the one-bid conference regular season and conference tournament champs and at-larges playing the week before the Big Dance.
If they are play-ins for the NCAA, they wouldn't be re-purposing these tournaments as much as replacing them. But that seems unlikely, since the networks really don't need anywhere near that many teams auditioning for the role of Cinderella.
(This post was last modified: 03-18-2017 12:31 AM by BruceMcF.)
03-18-2017 12:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2017 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.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.