(03-12-2018 10:12 AM)axeme Wrote:  The CIT was able to fill only 20 of its 32 slots.

My guess is that both it and the CBI are on their way out. The "pay to play" is just too expensive with little notoriety if you win. How many of you remember that Columbia won last year's CIT? And, what did that catapult them to this season?

Still, that will be a shame, because mid-majors won't be getting very many "at large" spots in either the NCAA or NIT in the years to come.

(03-12-2018 11:17 AM)bcunn3128 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 10:12 AM)axeme Wrote:  The CIT was able to fill only 20 of its 32 slots.

My guess is that both it and the CBI are on their way out. The "pay to play" is just too expensive with little notoriety if you win. How many of you remember that Columbia won last year's CIT? And, what did that catapult them to this season?

Still, that will be a shame, because mid-majors won't be getting very many "at large" spots in either the NCAA or NIT in the years to come.

One of them will survive, probably the CBI. There are always 30 or so half way decent teams with a young roster that would like to play more.

(03-12-2018 10:12 AM)axeme Wrote:  The CIT was able to fill only 20 of its 32 slots.

Not 32, the CIT was already down to 26 slots since 2016. Still, I'm not sure why that number is down to 20 this year.

(03-12-2018 11:17 AM)bcunn3128 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 10:12 AM)axeme Wrote:  The CIT was able to fill only 20 of its 32 slots.

My guess is that both it and the CBI are on their way out. The "pay to play" is just too expensive with little notoriety if you win. How many of you remember that Columbia won last year's CIT? And, what did that catapult them to this season?

Still, that will be a shame, because mid-majors won't be getting very many "at large" spots in either the NCAA or NIT in the years to come.

Which is all the more reason why I think the NCAA Tournament should expand. Still have a field of 64, but add more play-in games that tie in to the mid majors as best as possible. Maybe have all of the 11, 12, and 13 seeds be play-in games.

I don't know how the logistics would work, but it's frustrating to see good mid majors like Middle Tennessee State get left out in favor of sub .500 P5 schools like Syracuse and Oklahoma.

They don't need to expand. Just to stop taking mediocre power schools that can't finish with a winning record in their own league.

(03-12-2018 12:34 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  They don't need to expand. Just to stop taking mediocre power schools that can't finish with a winning record in their own league.

Since that will never happen, it would be best to expand.

Even mediocre P5 schools travel well, or have larger fan bases around the country, which would sell more tickets. It's always about money.

I know RPI is a bit taboo nowadays, but the committee still refers to it. If that metric considers you a top 50 team in the country (#33, in MTSU's case), then you shouldn't be missing a chance at a field of 64 teams. Add more play-in games.

(03-12-2018 12:34 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  They don't need to expand. Just to stop taking mediocre power schools that can't finish with a winning record in their own league.

Thank you... That Saint Mary's was left out this year is a joke!

I believe they should also start to see conference champions at 12 or lower

(03-12-2018 12:45 PM)EagleSam Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 12:34 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  They don't need to expand. Just to stop taking mediocre power schools that can't finish with a winning record in their own league.

Since that will never happen, it would be best to expand.

Nope... All expansion will do is let more 500 P5 teams in.

(03-12-2018 12:47 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 12:45 PM)EagleSam Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 12:34 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  They don't need to expand. Just to stop taking mediocre power schools that can't finish with a winning record in their own league.

Since that will never happen, it would be best to expand.

Nope... All expansion will do is let more 500 P5 teams in.

Maybe more P5 teams but I think it would also yield a few mid majors into the field.

(03-12-2018 12:45 PM)EagleSam Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 12:34 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  They don't need to expand. Just to stop taking mediocre power schools that can't finish with a winning record in their own league.

Since that will never happen, it would be best to expand.

Even mediocre P5 schools travel well, or have larger fan bases around the country, which would sell more tickets. It's always about money.

I know RPI is a bit taboo nowadays, but the committee still refers to it. If that metric considers you a top 50 team in the country (#33, in MTSU's case), then you shouldn't be missing a chance at a field of 64 teams. Add more play-in games.

I know it seems counterintuitive, but RPI mostly matters in reference to a team’s opponents, not the team’s own RPI. In terms of selection, a team’s RPI just doesn’t matter much; what matters is the RPI of the teams it has beaten. It’s almost all about resume.

CMU defeats Fort Wayne 94-89.

(03-12-2018 01:03 PM)axeme Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 12:45 PM)EagleSam Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 12:34 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  They don't need to expand. Just to stop taking mediocre power schools that can't finish with a winning record in their own league.

Since that will never happen, it would be best to expand.

Even mediocre P5 schools travel well, or have larger fan bases around the country, which would sell more tickets. It's always about money.

I know RPI is a bit taboo nowadays, but the committee still refers to it. If that metric considers you a top 50 team in the country (#33, in MTSU's case), then you shouldn't be missing a chance at a field of 64 teams. Add more play-in games.

I know it seems counterintuitive, but RPI mostly matters in reference to a team’s opponents, not the team’s own RPI. In terms of selection, a team’s RPI just doesn’t matter much; what matters is the RPI of the teams it has beaten. It’s almost all about resume.

It doesn't just seem counterintuitive...it most certainly is. You can't count Middle Tennessee State as a "quadrant 1" win for teams like Auburn and Miami (which it does, as a top 50 opponent on a neutral court), and then not have said "quadrant 1" team make the field. How can you call it a good win when it's not victory over an at-large team?

The new system is garbage, and it will continue to screw the mid majors as long as the P5 teams are too scared to travel to places like Murfreesboro. Or, until they expand the field. Because "quadrant 1" teams shouldn't be missing the tournament entirely.

(03-12-2018 01:05 PM)george14 Wrote:  CMU defeats Fort Wayne 94-89.

Would be cool to see an EMU/CMU finals in the CIT.

(03-12-2018 01:24 PM)EagleSam Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 01:03 PM)axeme Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 12:45 PM)EagleSam Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 12:34 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  They don't need to expand. Just to stop taking mediocre power schools that can't finish with a winning record in their own league.

Since that will never happen, it would be best to expand.

Even mediocre P5 schools travel well, or have larger fan bases around the country, which would sell more tickets. It's always about money.

I know RPI is a bit taboo nowadays, but the committee still refers to it. If that metric considers you a top 50 team in the country (#33, in MTSU's case), then you shouldn't be missing a chance at a field of 64 teams. Add more play-in games.

I know it seems counterintuitive, but RPI mostly matters in reference to a team’s opponents, not the team’s own RPI. In terms of selection, a team’s RPI just doesn’t matter much; what matters is the RPI of the teams it has beaten. It’s almost all about resume.

It doesn't just seem counterintuitive...it most certainly is. You can't count Middle Tennessee State as a "quadrant 1" win for teams like Auburn and Miami (which it does, as a top 50 opponent on a neutral court), and then not have said "quadrant 1" team make the field. How can you call it a good win when it's not victory over an at-large team?

The new system is garbage, and it will continue to screw the mid majors as long as the P5 teams are too scared to travel to places like Murfreesboro. Or, until they expand the field. Because "quadrant 1" teams shouldn't be missing the tournament entirely.

I'm pretty convinced the committee just picks who they want and finds the reasons they need to justify it later.

Case in point: they commonly insist mid majors don't test themselves enough. Monmouth a couple years back wins 27 including Notre Dame, USC, UCLA, Gtown and Rutgers, all road or neutral. Still left out after losing in their title game.

Now, a couple of those big names had down years. So Monmouth schedules aggressively and loses out because their 2-1 top 50 record isn't meaty enough. But that shows how ridiculously difficult it is to get an at large as a mid major when the committee would rather see a team go 5-12 against the top 50 with a signature win because they got opportunity after opportunity.

Hell, Monmouth only managed to get that schedule because they aren't a program that most expect to be good. The better mid majors are avoided by the power teams. It's a rigged system.

(03-12-2018 02:50 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 01:24 PM)EagleSam Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 01:03 PM)axeme Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 12:45 PM)EagleSam Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 12:34 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  They don't need to expand. Just to stop taking mediocre power schools that can't finish with a winning record in their own league.

Since that will never happen, it would be best to expand.

Even mediocre P5 schools travel well, or have larger fan bases around the country, which would sell more tickets. It's always about money.

I know RPI is a bit taboo nowadays, but the committee still refers to it. If that metric considers you a top 50 team in the country (#33, in MTSU's case), then you shouldn't be missing a chance at a field of 64 teams. Add more play-in games.

I know it seems counterintuitive, but RPI mostly matters in reference to a team’s opponents, not the team’s own RPI. In terms of selection, a team’s RPI just doesn’t matter much; what matters is the RPI of the teams it has beaten. It’s almost all about resume.

It doesn't just seem counterintuitive...it most certainly is. You can't count Middle Tennessee State as a "quadrant 1" win for teams like Auburn and Miami (which it does, as a top 50 opponent on a neutral court), and then not have said "quadrant 1" team make the field. How can you call it a good win when it's not victory over an at-large team?

The new system is garbage, and it will continue to screw the mid majors as long as the P5 teams are too scared to travel to places like Murfreesboro. Or, until they expand the field. Because "quadrant 1" teams shouldn't be missing the tournament entirely.

I'm pretty convinced the committee just picks who they want and finds the reasons they need to justify it later.

Case in point: they commonly insist mid majors don't test themselves enough. Monmouth a couple years back wins 27 including Notre Dame, USC, UCLA, Gtown and Rutgers, all road or neutral. Still left out after losing in their title game.

Now, a couple of those big names had down years. So Monmouth schedules aggressively and loses out because their 2-1 top 50 record isn't meaty enough. But that shows how ridiculously difficult it is to get an at large as a mid major when the committee would rather see a team go 5-12 against the top 50 with a signature win because they got opportunity after opportunity.

Hell, Monmouth only managed to get that schedule because they aren't a program that most expect to be good. The better mid majors are avoided by the power teams. It's a rigged system.

Which makes beating P5 teams that much sweeter

(03-12-2018 01:25 PM)EagleSam Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 01:05 PM)george14 Wrote:  CMU defeats Fort Wayne 94-89.

Would be cool to see an EMU/CMU finals in the CIT.

It would be good for the conference. People complain about these tourneys and bowl games, but it's extra playing time for the guys. It's not detrimental you know?

(03-12-2018 04:10 PM)george14 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 01:25 PM)EagleSam Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 01:05 PM)george14 Wrote:  CMU defeats Fort Wayne 94-89.

Would be cool to see an EMU/CMU finals in the CIT.

It would be good for the conference. People complain about these tourneys and bowl games, but it's extra playing time for the guys. It's not detrimental you know?

I AM TIRED OF ALL THIS SPORTS PLAYING

EMU/CMU would probably play next round. Completely regional and they havent shyed away from second round conference games before

(03-11-2018 09:35 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Miami playing at Campbell in the CBI, their only matchup against the MAC this year was a loss against BG.

snicker, snicker, snicker! :-)

EMU beat Niagara by 18 last night. We travel to Sam Houston State on Monday.