(03-02-2016 05:07 PM)Cyniclone Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2016 04:59 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2016 12:06 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote: [ -> ]The Vegas 16? Has a nice ring to it but it's still putting lipstick on a pig. The de-evolution of achievement and reward in sports continues with the "everybody wins a ribbon mentality." Outside of the NCAA, there should be no other end-of-the-year invitational tournament except the NIT. The NIT has history, features some good matchups, home floor games and gives opportunities to teams to experience playing in a major tournament. If you're not one of the 68 selected in the NCAA or 32 in the NIT (100 total) - stay home, save the travel money and work harder next year to qualify.
I'd agree wholeheartedly if the men's NIT were like the women's NIT.
On the men's side no one has a spot unless they are a conference champ that didn't earn an NCAA bid or invited at-large.
On the women's side they guarantee that the highest team not selected to the NCAA from each conference receives an auto bid to the Women's NIT and then fill the remainder of the field at-large. There is always the chance that a second place from a low regarded league might actually be pretty decent.
The women's NIT field is also 64 teams, which provides lots of room for both everyone's No. 2 and the at-large teams. Of course, they still have a third-tier tournament, the legendary Women's Basketball Invitational.
Third-tier tourneys are a lot like the low-level bowls — the results don't matter and on-site attendance is usually abysmal, but it's good extra practice for the teams involved and it helps fill a little airtime when the important games aren't on.
Learn something every day. AState is such a perennial WNIT had no idea the other existed.
I'm going to start my own tournament while we're at it. The GIT (George's Invitational Tournament). Everybody with an RPI worse than 300 gets in (unless already in another tournament lol).
Just so nobody feels left out of a post-season tournament.
(03-02-2016 05:25 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm going to start my own tournament while we're at it. The GIT (George's Invitational Tournament). Everybody with an RPI worse than 300 gets in (unless already in another tournament lol).
Just so nobody feels left out of a post-season tournament.
Make it the George's Regional Invitational Tournament Series, limit the participants to teams from the South, and make the trophy look like the world's biggest pitcher of sweet tea. A&E can run the title game between Duck Dynasty reruns.
It will be interesting to see what types of teams this attracts. Seems like some power conference schools have inquired about this tourney.....if Creighton doesnt make the NIT, i would prefer this over the CBI or CIT.
Vegas 16 is a bit clunky upon reflection. If the tournament actually gains traction, I imagine they'll just start referring to it as Vegas.
"Coach, your team just barely missed out on the NIT! What happens now?"
"I'm going to Vegas, where I will be only coaching basketball. Coaching basketball and nothing else. Seriously."
(03-03-2016 06:52 PM)CameramanJ Wrote: [ -> ]Vegas 16 is a bit clunky upon reflection. If the tournament actually gains traction, I imagine they'll just start referring to it as Vegas.
"Coach, your team just barely missed out on the NIT! What happens now?"
"I'm going to Vegas, where I will be only coaching basketball. Coaching basketball and nothing else. Seriously."
I think, for that reason, Vegas 16 will stick.
Compare:
"Coach, your team just barely missed out on the NIT! What happens now?"
"I'm going to Vegas, where I will be only coaching basketball. Coaching basketball and nothing else. Seriously."
Vs.
"Coach, your team just barely missed out on the NIT! What happens now?"
"We're going to the Vegas 16. We made a lot of progress this year, but there are definitely some things we need to work on, and it'll be a good opportunity to get our younger players some minutes against some good programs. Seriously."
I wish the NIT would become like the WNIT. Seed the top 32. Regionalize the matchups in the early rounds. Pretty much would eliminate the CIT and CBI. Would make for a pretty good tournament IMO.
(03-03-2016 05:49 PM)Jet915 Wrote: [ -> ]It will be interesting to see what types of teams this attracts. Seems like some power conference schools have inquired about this tourney.....if Creighton doesnt make the NIT, i would prefer this over the CBI or CIT.
I think the consensus will be that Vegas 16 is preferable to the CBI or CIT.
The only negative I can see is that it might be more difficult to sell tickets to fans of teams from the four western conferences (Pac-12, MWC, WCC, WAC) that play their conference tournaments in Vegas.
(02-05-2016 10:35 AM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ] (02-05-2016 09:39 AM)CenterSquarEd Wrote: [ -> ]I'd like to see one of these lesser tournaments grant automatic bids to teams that come in second place in their conference regular-season standings AND become runner-up by advancing to and losing their conference tournament championship game. ...
Can you give an example or two? IF you're a conference runner-up, you probably went at least 12-6 in your conference. Figure you also won at least half of your nonconference games, say 7-7. IS anyone at 19 wins, conference runner-up and conference tournament finalist sitting home after getting snubbed by the NIT, CBI and CIT? Is this a thing that happens down in the nether reaches of the WAC, A-Sun, NEC, MEAC, SWAC?
With the Vegas 16 scrambling to fill their 8th slot, and the CIT being short 6 teams, I think we can conclude that deserving teams aren't being passed over. Heck, undeserving teams aren't being passed over.
Hmm. Doing the math, the CIT is short 6 teams from their 32-team format. There are 8 teams going to Vegas. I think we have a pretty good handle on how much demand there is from schools for a third-tier postseason tournament.
(02-05-2016 05:20 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ] (02-05-2016 04:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think the Vegas 16 is going to pull teams from the NIT, but it probably could pull western teams from the CBI/CIT. I wonder if the organizers will continue the bowl-game MO and make some sort of arrangement with the western conferences.
It's the first year. 2. If they sign up 16 schools and fill half of the seats and don't lose their shirts, I'd call that a raging success.
1. BZZZZT. Wrong, dumb***.
2. So, not a raging success.
I like to review my predictions.
(03-14-2016 07:32 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ] (02-05-2016 10:35 AM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ] (02-05-2016 09:39 AM)CenterSquarEd Wrote: [ -> ]I'd like to see one of these lesser tournaments grant automatic bids to teams that come in second place in their conference regular-season standings AND become runner-up by advancing to and losing their conference tournament championship game. ...
Can you give an example or two? IF you're a conference runner-up, you probably went at least 12-6 in your conference. Figure you also won at least half of your nonconference games, say 7-7. IS anyone at 19 wins, conference runner-up and conference tournament finalist sitting home after getting snubbed by the NIT, CBI and CIT? Is this a thing that happens down in the nether reaches of the WAC, A-Sun, NEC, MEAC, SWAC?
With the Vegas 16 scrambling to fill their 8th slot, and the CIT being short 6 teams, I think we can conclude that deserving teams aren't being passed over. Heck, undeserving teams aren't being passed over.
Hmm. Doing the math, the CIT is short 6 teams from their 32-team format. There are 8 teams going to Vegas. I think we have a pretty good handle on how much demand there is from schools for a third-tier postseason tournament.
(02-05-2016 05:20 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ] (02-05-2016 04:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think the Vegas 16 is going to pull teams from the NIT, but it probably could pull western teams from the CBI/CIT. I wonder if the organizers will continue the bowl-game MO and make some sort of arrangement with the western conferences.
It's the first year. 2. If they sign up 16 schools and fill half of the seats and don't lose their shirts, I'd call that a raging success.
1. BZZZZT. Wrong, dumb***.
2. So, not a raging success.
I like to review my predictions.
When the players and coaches talk about the experience of the tourney, it'll be more attractive in future years. Especially the AD's knowing the fixed costs and ease of travel by being in one location for the whole tourney.
In addition, they planned this out in November. They'll have more time to market it for next year .
(03-14-2016 11:09 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ] (03-14-2016 07:32 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ] (02-05-2016 10:35 AM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ] (02-05-2016 09:39 AM)CenterSquarEd Wrote: [ -> ]I'd like to see one of these lesser tournaments grant automatic bids to teams that come in second place in their conference regular-season standings AND become runner-up by advancing to and losing their conference tournament championship game. ...
Can you give an example or two? IF you're a conference runner-up, you probably went at least 12-6 in your conference. Figure you also won at least half of your nonconference games, say 7-7. IS anyone at 19 wins, conference runner-up and conference tournament finalist sitting home after getting snubbed by the NIT, CBI and CIT? Is this a thing that happens down in the nether reaches of the WAC, A-Sun, NEC, MEAC, SWAC?
With the Vegas 16 scrambling to fill their 8th slot, and the CIT being short 6 teams, I think we can conclude that deserving teams aren't being passed over. Heck, undeserving teams aren't being passed over.
Hmm. Doing the math, the CIT is short 6 teams from their 32-team format. There are 8 teams going to Vegas. I think we have a pretty good handle on how much demand there is from schools for a third-tier postseason tournament.
(02-05-2016 05:20 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ] (02-05-2016 04:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think the Vegas 16 is going to pull teams from the NIT, but it probably could pull western teams from the CBI/CIT. I wonder if the organizers will continue the bowl-game MO and make some sort of arrangement with the western conferences.
It's the first year. 2. If they sign up 16 schools and fill half of the seats and don't lose their shirts, I'd call that a raging success.
1. BZZZZT. Wrong, dumb***.
2. So, not a raging success.
I like to review my predictions.
When the players and coaches talk about the experience of the tourney, it'll be more attractive in future years. Especially the AD's knowing the fixed costs and ease of travel by being in one location for the whole tourney.
In addition, they planned this out in November. They'll have more time to market it for next year .
The clear problem this year was that high-major teams backed away out of fear they would be the only high-major in the field, which is a no-win situation for them. If you are Northwestern or LSU, playing Tennessee Tech in the Vegas 16 or CBI can't help you with your boosters and fans. It's expected if you win and an embarrassment if you lose. If Northwestern and LSU could be assured of playing each other in Vegas, that would be a different deal.
The Vegas 16 guys have to solve that problem, or else they'll be forever stuck in the rut of competing for only the same teams that the CBI and CIT can get.
(03-03-2016 09:57 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2016 05:49 PM)Jet915 Wrote: [ -> ]It will be interesting to see what types of teams this attracts. Seems like some power conference schools have inquired about this tourney.....if Creighton doesnt make the NIT, i would prefer this over the CBI or CIT.
I think the consensus will be that Vegas 16 is preferable to the CBI or CIT.
The only negative I can see is that it might be more difficult to sell tickets to fans of teams from the four western conferences (Pac-12, MWC, WCC, WAC) that play their conference tournaments in Vegas.
Fortunately, that's why UC Santa Barbara is in town. A 2nd trip to Vegas in the same season? We'll take it.
(03-15-2016 12:12 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]The clear problem this year was that high-major teams backed away out of fear they would be the only high-major in the field, which is a no-win situation for them. If you are Northwestern or LSU, playing Tennessee Tech in the Vegas 16 or CBI can't help you with your boosters and fans. It's expected if you win and an embarrassment if you lose. If Northwestern and LSU could be assured of playing each other in Vegas, that would be a different deal.
The Vegas 16 guys have to solve that problem, or else they'll be forever stuck in the rut of competing for only the same teams that the CBI and CIT can get.
If they want to provide a "bowl game" experience in basketball, then they would need to cut deals with conferences to guarantee that the best team not going to the NCAAT or NIT is available to their tournament, similar to the deals that the bowls have. They'll have a problem if the power conferences aren't seeing any benefit in this.
Question we may never learn the answer to:
Did the Vegas 16 need $800,000 from 16 entry fees to break even? I mean, will they lose their shirts on deposits for a bunch of hotel rooms that they don't fill; site rental for Mandalay Bay, etc. Fixed costs are a thing.
I like the idea of this tournament better than the NIT and NIT-wannabe model, and I hope it makes it to next year, either with 8 or 16 teams. But things like this often bust.
(03-15-2016 12:12 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]The clear problem this year was that high-major teams backed away out of fear they would be the only high-major in the field, which is a no-win situation for them. If you are Northwestern or LSU, playing Tennessee Tech in the Vegas 16 or CBI can't help you with your boosters and fans. It's expected if you win and an embarrassment if you lose. If Northwestern and LSU could be assured of playing each other in Vegas, that would be a different deal.
The Vegas 16 guys have to solve that problem, or else they'll be forever stuck in the rut of competing for only the same teams that the CBI and CIT can get.
I wonder if there wasn't an informal agreement reached among the power conference schools to not take part in sub-NIT tournaments.
The CBI had its fair share of power programs, especially in the early going — Cincinnati, Colorado, Creighton, Houston, Oregon, Oregon State, Pitt, Purdue, Texas, Texas A&M, Tulsa, Virginia, Washington, Washington State. Now it's managed to fall behind the CIT, which doesn't pursue P5 schools.
And the Vegas 16, which seemed to exist in part to provide power schools a more palatable third-tier tournament, gets two CUSA and one MAC school.
Perhaps this year was an abberation with so many NIT bids snapped up by regular-season champions, but if this becomes a going concern, it'll be hard for any other postseason tournament to gain or keep traction.
(03-15-2016 02:58 PM)Cyniclone Wrote: [ -> ] (03-15-2016 12:12 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]The clear problem this year was that high-major teams backed away out of fear they would be the only high-major in the field, which is a no-win situation for them. If you are Northwestern or LSU, playing Tennessee Tech in the Vegas 16 or CBI can't help you with your boosters and fans. It's expected if you win and an embarrassment if you lose. If Northwestern and LSU could be assured of playing each other in Vegas, that would be a different deal.
The Vegas 16 guys have to solve that problem, or else they'll be forever stuck in the rut of competing for only the same teams that the CBI and CIT can get.
I wonder if there wasn't an informal agreement reached among the power conference schools to not take part in sub-NIT tournaments.
The CBI had its fair share of power programs, especially in the early going — Cincinnati, Colorado, Creighton, Houston, Oregon, Oregon State, Pitt, Purdue, Texas, Texas A&M, Tulsa, Virginia, Washington, Washington State. Now it's managed to fall behind the CIT, which doesn't pursue P5 schools.
And the Vegas 16, which seemed to exist in part to provide power schools a more palatable third-tier tournament, gets two CUSA and one MAC school.
Perhaps this year was an abberation with so many NIT bids snapped up by regular-season champions, but if this becomes a going concern, it'll be hard for any other postseason tournament to gain or keep traction.
I think it's more the negative reaction if you're a high-major team in a tournament field predominately made up of mid-majors and low-majors. Colorado was questioned (and laughed at) last year when they were the only high-major team in the CBI. And not only by the media --
CU's best player (a senior) chose to not play in the CBI and left the team.
(03-15-2016 04:28 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (03-15-2016 02:58 PM)Cyniclone Wrote: [ -> ] (03-15-2016 12:12 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]The clear problem this year was that high-major teams backed away out of fear they would be the only high-major in the field, which is a no-win situation for them. If you are Northwestern or LSU, playing Tennessee Tech in the Vegas 16 or CBI can't help you with your boosters and fans. It's expected if you win and an embarrassment if you lose. If Northwestern and LSU could be assured of playing each other in Vegas, that would be a different deal.
The Vegas 16 guys have to solve that problem, or else they'll be forever stuck in the rut of competing for only the same teams that the CBI and CIT can get.
I wonder if there wasn't an informal agreement reached among the power conference schools to not take part in sub-NIT tournaments.
The CBI had its fair share of power programs, especially in the early going — Cincinnati, Colorado, Creighton, Houston, Oregon, Oregon State, Pitt, Purdue, Texas, Texas A&M, Tulsa, Virginia, Washington, Washington State. Now it's managed to fall behind the CIT, which doesn't pursue P5 schools.
And the Vegas 16, which seemed to exist in part to provide power schools a more palatable third-tier tournament, gets two CUSA and one MAC school.
Perhaps this year was an abberation with so many NIT bids snapped up by regular-season champions, but if this becomes a going concern, it'll be hard for any other postseason tournament to gain or keep traction.
I think it's more the negative reaction if you're a high-major team in a tournament field predominately made up of mid-majors and low-majors. Colorado was questioned (and laughed at) last year when they were the only high-major team in the CBI. And not only by the media -- CU's best player (a senior) chose to not play in the CBI and left the team.
Were they mocked for being a big school in the little pond, or because they were the only sub-.500 team to get an at-large bid to a tournament?
The first couple of years had a few P5 schools. I guess the larger schools were expecting something else? If this non-participation by the power schools continues, the CBI and CIT would appear destined to merge, since the one distinction between them (CBI accepts power schools, CIT doesn't) is effectively neutered.
When we won the CIT in 2010, it was a 16 team tournament that was a very strong mid-major field. The 30k per game isn't bad for a school like us. Average over 4k and you make a little money on it.
(03-15-2016 07:03 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote: [ -> ]When we won the CIT in 2010, it was a 16 team tournament that was a very strong mid-major field. The 30k per game isn't bad for a school like us. Average over 4k and you make a little money on it.
That could be part of the problem. Old Dominion has pretty strong support at home, but in four years of CIT/CBI games, they've never cracked the 4,000-fan barrier. I'm guessing that's not uncommon for most schools in these tournaments to have far fewer fans with tickets not in the season-ticket package.
Though it's worth noting that Grand Canyon managed 7,315 fans in Monday's win against South Carolina State. I don't care if they give out degrees through Pez dispensers, that's pretty impressive.