Troy- NCAA
UTA- NIT
GaSt and Texas State- CIT
Coastal Carolina and GaSou- CBI

I would have to assume that ASU turned down a bid to either the CIT, CBI, or both. I'd like to think that if we can get the ship righted, next season, and win close to 20 games, Chasse would let our guys play. The WNIT, is a private tournament where schools have to pay/bid to host games. Really no different than the CIT or CBI. The CBI used to get some P5 schools, but the schools in both tournaments are pretty much from mid to low major conferences. Only exception appears to be a couple of A-10 schools. Makes me wonder how much longer these tournaments will be around.

Uta had a really good team to miss the ncaa. It happens.

6 teams in post season is great too.

We should have been one of them imho. We brought back a ton of talent.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That really galls me that Troy is going to the NCAA and Arlington is not.

(03-13-2017 07:18 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  That really galls me that Troy is going to the NCAA and Arlington is not.

I, at least, thought UTA would get an NIT home game or two. Going out to Utah, to play BYU, is no "reward" for a really good season. I thought Troy was really good when they played us in LR. But, I guess we made a lot of teams look good playing without a point guard and a lack of overall talent. Regardless, they will be a quick out playing Duke in Greenville.

I really liked the idea of these "alternative" tournaments when they started a few years ago. The CBI included "down" teams from major conferences and some mid-majors, while the CIT was set up for mid-majors like us. The early CBI tournaments included some fairly big-name teams like Oregon, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, St. Johns, Washington State, etc. who finished .500 or even slightly below. P5 teams no longer choose to go. This year the tournament includes sub-.500 Coastal Carolina against sub-500 Hampton. This makes the tournament a total joke and thus I doubt it survives. The CIT appears to include mostly mid to low majors with good won-loss records. Hopefully, the CIT survives since it is a good landing spot for programs like ours who have a successful season (18-22) wins. Hopefully, we will, at least, be in the position to turn it down in a couple of seasons. Seems like ASU's reasons for turning it down, was a combination of their AD not liking the pay to play tournaments and the fact that they really tanked to end the season.

(03-13-2017 10:14 AM)mjs Wrote:  I really liked the idea of these "alternative" tournaments when they started a few years ago. The CBI included "down" teams from major conferences and some mid-majors, while the CIT was set up for mid-majors like us. The early CBI tournaments included some fairly big-name teams like Oregon, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, St. Johns, Washington State, etc. who finished .500 or even slightly below. P5 teams no longer choose to go. This year the tournament includes sub-.500 Coastal Carolina against sub-500 Hampton. This makes the tournament a total joke and thus I doubt it survives. The CIT appears to include mostly mid to low majors with good won-loss records. Hopefully, the CIT survives since it is a good landing spot for programs like ours who have a successful season (18-22) wins. Hopefully, we will, at least, be in the position to turn it down in a couple of seasons. Seems like ASU's reasons for turning it down, was a combination of their AD not liking the pay to play tournaments and the fact that they really tanked to end the season.

I would guess that "tanked to end the season" is most likely the reason ASU is not in the CBI or CIT. If they were headed in the other direction at the end of the season there would be a lot of incentive to play in one of those tournaments. The CBI and CIT are used as much or more as a springboard to next year as they are as a reward for a good season!

(03-13-2017 01:02 PM)PTJR Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 10:14 AM)mjs Wrote:  I really liked the idea of these "alternative" tournaments when they started a few years ago. The CBI included "down" teams from major conferences and some mid-majors, while the CIT was set up for mid-majors like us. The early CBI tournaments included some fairly big-name teams like Oregon, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, St. Johns, Washington State, etc. who finished .500 or even slightly below. P5 teams no longer choose to go. This year the tournament includes sub-.500 Coastal Carolina against sub-500 Hampton. This makes the tournament a total joke and thus I doubt it survives. The CIT appears to include mostly mid to low majors with good won-loss records. Hopefully, the CIT survives since it is a good landing spot for programs like ours who have a successful season (18-22) wins. Hopefully, we will, at least, be in the position to turn it down in a couple of seasons. Seems like ASU's reasons for turning it down, was a combination of their AD not liking the pay to play tournaments and the fact that they really tanked to end the season.

I would guess that "tanked to end the season" is most likely the reason ASU is not in the CBI or CIT. If they were headed in the other direction at the end of the season there would be a lot of incentive to play in one of those tournaments. The CBI and CIT are used as much or more as a springboard to next year as they are as a reward for a good season!

Of course, the reason they turned down the CIT and CBI is now much clearer.

(03-13-2017 01:51 PM)mjs Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 01:02 PM)PTJR Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 10:14 AM)mjs Wrote:  I really liked the idea of these "alternative" tournaments when they started a few years ago. The CBI included "down" teams from major conferences and some mid-majors, while the CIT was set up for mid-majors like us. The early CBI tournaments included some fairly big-name teams like Oregon, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, St. Johns, Washington State, etc. who finished .500 or even slightly below. P5 teams no longer choose to go. This year the tournament includes sub-.500 Coastal Carolina against sub-500 Hampton. This makes the tournament a total joke and thus I doubt it survives. The CIT appears to include mostly mid to low majors with good won-loss records. Hopefully, the CIT survives since it is a good landing spot for programs like ours who have a successful season (18-22) wins. Hopefully, we will, at least, be in the position to turn it down in a couple of seasons. Seems like ASU's reasons for turning it down, was a combination of their AD not liking the pay to play tournaments and the fact that they really tanked to end the season.

I would guess that "tanked to end the season" is most likely the reason ASU is not in the CBI or CIT. If they were headed in the other direction at the end of the season there would be a lot of incentive to play in one of those tournaments. The CBI and CIT are used as much or more as a springboard to next year as they are as a reward for a good season!

Of course, the reason they turned down the CIT and CBI is now much clearer.

No way a school goes to the CBI or CIT in a coaching changeover situation!

(03-13-2017 01:02 PM)PTJR Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 10:14 AM)mjs Wrote:  I really liked the idea of these "alternative" tournaments when they started a few years ago. The CBI included "down" teams from major conferences and some mid-majors, while the CIT was set up for mid-majors like us. The early CBI tournaments included some fairly big-name teams like Oregon, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, St. Johns, Washington State, etc. who finished .500 or even slightly below. P5 teams no longer choose to go. This year the tournament includes sub-.500 Coastal Carolina against sub-500 Hampton. This makes the tournament a total joke and thus I doubt it survives. The CIT appears to include mostly mid to low majors with good won-loss records. Hopefully, the CIT survives since it is a good landing spot for programs like ours who have a successful season (18-22) wins. Hopefully, we will, at least, be in the position to turn it down in a couple of seasons. Seems like ASU's reasons for turning it down, was a combination of their AD not liking the pay to play tournaments and the fact that they really tanked to end the season.

I would guess that "tanked to end the season" is most likely the reason ASU is not in the CBI or CIT. If they were headed in the other direction at the end of the season there would be a lot of incentive to play in one of those tournaments. The CBI and CIT are used as much or more as a springboard to next year as they are as a reward for a good season!

It's pretty well documented that Mohajir does not like the pay for play tournaments. He got grilled on this pretty hard by reporters during the post McCasland press conference yesterday. He ended up admitting that he doesn't see the benefit to those tournaments, but would give a head coach input.

If a team has over-achieved and made it to one of the pay-to-play tournaments, then it would be worth the money to send them, especially if they had a good number of underclassmen.

(03-14-2017 01:30 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  If a team has over-achieved and made it to one of the pay-to-play tournaments, then it would be worth the money to send them, especially if they had a good number of underclassmen.

Probably a lot of our fans would have scoffed at going to the CIT, this year (if we had a decent record), in light of what we did last season. If we can win 4 or 5 more games next season (19 plus wins), I think fans would be happy for a chance at postseason. I would hope Chasse would consider the CIT or CBI. If we can win close to 20, with most everyone returning, it would be the perfect time to go to one of those tournaments.

Win 20 and the rest will fall into place. But we have a way to go.