if the NIT was expanded to 64 teams, to go along with the 68 NCAA teams, I think you would see a few of these 'pay for play' tourneys disappear. (such as the CBI, CIT, Vegas 16, err, 8)
68 NCAA
64 NIT
the NIT actually has a nice history, and normally has some decent P5 teams, to go along with the bubble teams that were left out...plus the extra practice, and the trip to NYC and MSG.
The poll didn't give a third option, which is to do away with the NIT and expand the NCAA field. That one gets my vote.
No because there are already 48 other postseason spots not even including the NCAA Tournament. At this point, slightly less than half of D-I makes the postseason, why not just give everyone a participation trophy? The NIT actually expanded to 40 teams years ago but that's not necessary anymore because of how many more of these tournaments there are.
My vote would be to reduce the NCAA tournament to the 32 best teams, doing away with auto bids. Make it about what it is supposed to be about - finding a champion.
Expand the NIT to 96 teams and grant autobids to all conference tournament winners and regular season winners. With a reduced NCAA bid, you will have some very good power conference teams in the NIT and you will have the David Goliath stories everyone likes. In my idea, the prize for winning the NIT would be an automatic entry into the next year's NCAA tournament.
The NCAA would maintain its importance but would be more competive. The NIT would gain stature because of its size and increased interest.
(03-18-2016 11:26 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote: [ -> ]My vote would be to reduce the NCAA tournament to the 32 best teams, doing away with auto bids. Make it about what it is supposed to be about - finding a champion.
Expand the NIT to 96 teams and grant autobids to all conference tournament winners and regular season winners. With a reduced NCAA bid, you will have some very good power conference teams in the NIT and you will have the David Goliath stories everyone likes. In my idea, the prize for winning the NIT would be an automatic entry into the next year's NCAA tournament.
The NCAA would maintain its importance but would be more competive. The NIT would gain stature because of its size and increased interest.
Then you would largely be creating a P7 for basketball, with their own championship. This year, conferences that would have zero bids to this super-tournament would include the AAC, MWC, MVC, and WCC. The A10, on the other hand, would be elated, with 4 teams in the field (one more than the Big East).
And somehow, I don't think that having 96 teams in the field would improve the stature of or interest in the NIT.
(03-18-2016 11:06 AM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]No because there are already 48 other postseason spots not even including the NCAA Tournament. At this point, slightly less than half of D-I makes the postseason, why not just give everyone a participation trophy? The NIT actually expanded to 40 teams years ago but that's not necessary anymore because of how many more of these tournaments there are.
as I said, expanding the NIT would most likely mean the end of the CIT and Vegas tourney...
let's say only the CBI survives...that's 68+64+16 or 148 teams out of 351 teams is 42% of NCAA teams....
if 58% of NCAA teams are left out, I wouldn't call that 'a participation trophy'
(03-18-2016 11:26 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote: [ -> ]My vote would be to reduce the NCAA tournament to the 32 best teams, doing away with auto bids. Make it about what it is supposed to be about - finding a champion.
Expand the NIT to 96 teams and grant autobids to all conference tournament winners and regular season winners. With a reduced NCAA bid, you will have some very good power conference teams in the NIT and you will have the David Goliath stories everyone likes. In my idea, the prize for winning the NIT would be an automatic entry into the next year's NCAA tournament.
The NCAA would maintain its importance but would be more competive. The NIT would gain stature because of its size and increased interest.
The problem with that is that short of every conference getting an auto-bid, you'd run into the same issue you have with football when it comes to access to the real national championship (technically, the NIT is a national championship too). That and the elephant in the room of racial politics entering the fray, some being mad about the fact that the MEAC and SWAC don't have access to a national championship. Not that most of them should be D-I to begin with.
(03-18-2016 11:41 AM)UofMemphis Wrote: [ -> ]as I said, expanding the NIT would most likely mean the end of the CIT and Vegas tourney...
let's say only the CBI survives...that's 68+64+16 or 148 teams out of 351 teams is 42% of NCAA teams....
if 58% of NCAA teams are left out, I wouldn't call that 'a participation trophy'
Just no, leave everything as it is. Maybe expand the Big Dance to as much as 80 but that's about it.
(03-18-2016 11:44 AM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ] (03-18-2016 11:41 AM)UofMemphis Wrote: [ -> ]as I said, expanding the NIT would most likely mean the end of the CIT and Vegas tourney...
let's say only the CBI survives...that's 68+64+16 or 148 teams out of 351 teams is 42% of NCAA teams....
if 58% of NCAA teams are left out, I wouldn't call that 'a participation trophy'
Just no, leave everything as it is. Maybe expand the Big Dance to as much as 80 but that's about it.
and that's fine, but I just don't buy the "so everyone gets a trophy?" argument when over half the NCAA would be left out, and only the 68 NCAA teams REALLY matter (unless you're in the NIT, in which case, you care)
if they MUST expand the NCAA tourney...go ahead and do play in games for the other 2 #1 seeds...it's the 16 seeds only real shot for an 'NCAA win' anyway...that would be 70...and I don't want it any bigger than that honestly
What's your point? Except for half of the Ivy and a few bottom feeders in some conferences, every single team has access to the national title as late as late February via conference tournaments. Even understanding that there are some NIT teams that could advance to the NCAA Final Four should they catch lightening in a bottle, keep the right make the Dance a priviledge and accomplishment instead of watering it down and letting every above average team in.
I don't mind an expanded NIT, but either way, I think they need a modified format. I really think the NIT is leaving TV revenue on the table by scheduling games against NCAA tourney games.
If you stick with 32 teams, I would play games Monday-Wednesday when the NCAA tourney isn't on, after the first weekend of the tourney. You'd end up with something like this:
Thursday: NCAA (R64)
Friday: NCAA (R64)
Saturday: NCAA (R32)
Sunday: NCAA (R32)
Monday: NIT (R32, ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU/ESPNEWS)
Tuesday: NIT (R32, ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU/ESPNEWS)
Wednesday: NIT (R16, ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU/ESPNEWS)
Thursday: NCAA (Sweet 16)
Friday: NCAA (Sweet 16)
Saturday: NCAA (Elite 8)
Sunday: NCAA (Elite 8)
Monday: NIT (Quarters, MSG, ESPN)
Tuesday: NIT (Quarters, MSG, ESPN)
Wednesday: NIT (Semi-Finals, MSG, ESPN)
Thursday: NIT (Championship, MSG, ESPN)
Saturday: NCAA (Final Four)
Monday: NCAA (Championship)
By delaying the NIT until after the first weekend of the NCAAs, you'd be able to generate at least some interest in filling out NIT brackets and thus generate additional TV interest. To make this all work, it would mean shifting away from home games for the Top 16 seeds to instead just the Top 8 seeds (for instance, #1 would host #8 in their regional and would be joined by #4/#5). If greater TV revenue could offset the loss of home crowds, this might be a better format to move forward with. You could also easily expand this to 64 teams since there's such a long delay between the NCAA Tourney's Elite 8 and the Final Four.
No one is gonna be watching the NIT anyways except college hoops diehards, so who cares?
(03-18-2016 11:45 AM)UofMemphis Wrote: [ -> ]if they MUST expand the NCAA tourney...go ahead and do play in games for the other 2 #1 seeds...it's the 16 seeds only real shot for an 'NCAA win' anyway...that would be 70...and I don't want it any bigger than that honestly
That would be a very easy adjustment. Then there would be 3 games each day (Tuesday and Wednesday) in Dayton instead of 2 each day. The winners of the Tuesday 16 vs. 16 games then each play a #1 seed on Thursday and the winners of the Wednesday 16 vs. 16 games each play a #1 seed on Friday.
(03-18-2016 12:09 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (03-18-2016 11:45 AM)UofMemphis Wrote: [ -> ]if they MUST expand the NCAA tourney...go ahead and do play in games for the other 2 #1 seeds...it's the 16 seeds only real shot for an 'NCAA win' anyway...that would be 70...and I don't want it any bigger than that honestly
That would be a very easy adjustment. Then there would be 3 games each day (Tuesday and Wednesday) in Dayton instead of 2 each day. The winners of the Tuesday 16 vs. 16 games then each play a #1 seed on Thursday and the winners of the Wednesday 16 vs. 16 games each play a #1 seed on Friday.
yep...plus, it gives the 16 seeds a shot at an NCAA win before being slaughtered by a #1 seed...easy, and simple.
but no bigger than 70 IMHO.
(03-18-2016 12:06 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]No one is gonna be watching the NIT anyways except college hoops diehards, so who cares?
the teams in it, and their fans...
I voted expand, but if anyone were crazy enough to put me in charge....
I'd go back to 62 for the NCAA tournament. I would start on the dates used for the first four to eliminate the day time games for the first round stretching the first round to four days.
The NIT would go to 62 and the top unselected team from each conference would get an auto bid and we'd use the women's format in the first two rounds where the 1-4 seeds host three games, their own plus another game so that 5-8 seeds would be at a neutral site in round one, and then winners meet on the 1-4 seed's court in round two, third round games at the highest seed and then a pre-determined site hosting the final 8.
(03-18-2016 12:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]I voted expand, but if anyone were crazy enough to put me in charge....
I'd go back to 62 for the NCAA tournament. I would start on the dates used for the first four to eliminate the day time games for the first round stretching the first round to four days.
The NIT would go to 62 and the top unselected team from each conference would get an auto bid and we'd use the women's format in the first two rounds where the 1-4 seeds host three games, their own plus another game so that 5-8 seeds would be at a neutral site in round one, and then winners meet on the 1-4 seed's court in round two, third round games at the highest seed and then a pre-determined site hosting the final 8.
I think you mean 64...62 would be an odd looking bracket.
All it would mean is that two 1-seeds would be given a bye. Not much to figure out. As it stands now, the 1-seeds get a de facto bye anyways based on historical results.
Women's tournament
64 NCAA
64 WNIT
16 WBI
About perfect setup.
Here is the WNIT selection criteria:
The 2016 Postseason WNIT field will consist of 32 automatic invitations – one from each conference – and 32 (or more) at-large teams. The intention of the WNIT Selection Committee is to select the best available at-large teams in the nation. A team offered an automatic berth by the WNIT shall be the team that is the highest-finishing team in its conference’s regular-season standings, and not selected for the NCAA Tournament. A team that fulfills these qualities, and accepts, will earn the WNIT automatic berth for its conference, regardless of overall record. The remaining berths in the WNIT are filled by the best teams available. Any team considered for an at-large berth must have an overall record of .500 or better.[2] Should a conference’s automatic qualifier team decline the WNIT bid, the conference forfeits its AQ spot and that berth goes into the at-large pool. NC State and Arkansas qualified as invitees from the ACC and SEC respectively but each declined to participate.
(03-18-2016 11:26 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote: [ -> ]My vote would be to reduce the NCAA tournament to the 32 best teams, doing away with auto bids. Make it about what it is supposed to be about - finding a champion.
How would this suggestion be about "what it's supposed to be about" when the NCAA tournament for almost half of its existence was champions only?