I wonder if those schools that said no to the NIT might have considered forming their own postseason event. Make it for big schools that miss out on the NCAA so they don't have to embarrass themselves by losing to smaller programs that don't interest them.

That tweet has 17 institutions on it. Doing a postseason event among them would be possible.

(03-20-2024 01:10 PM)rtist Wrote:  I wonder if those schools that said no to the NIT might have considered forming their own postseason event. Make it for big schools that miss out on the NCAA so they don't have to embarrass themselves by losing to smaller programs that don't interest them.

That tweet has 17 institutions on it. Doing a postseason event among them would be possible.

If they aren't taking a bid to the NIT, they sure aren't going to take a bid for an even lower profile event.

(03-20-2024 01:10 PM)rtist Wrote:  I wonder if those schools that said no to the NIT might have considered forming their own postseason event. Make it for big schools that miss out on the NCAA so they don't have to embarrass themselves by losing to smaller programs that don't interest them.

Not wanting to bother with a consolation tournament is most likely a bigger factor than potentially losing to mid- or low-major program

(Except for Tom Izzo)

(03-20-2024 01:56 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 01:10 PM)rtist Wrote:  I wonder if those schools that said no to the NIT might have considered forming their own postseason event. Make it for big schools that miss out on the NCAA so they don't have to embarrass themselves by losing to smaller programs that don't interest them.

Not wanting to bother with a consolation tournament is most likely a bigger factor than potentially losing to mid- or low-major program

(Except for Tom Izzo)

Yes ... they restructured the NIT to make it the consolation tournament for those Power 6 teams that want a consolation tournament ... including a guarantee of two seeds per Power 6 conference no matter how low in the Power 6 conference that might go, which then in turn allows the unseeded Power 6 schools to travel to Power 6 schools in the first round, where losing on the road is not an embarrassment.

We can see from the fact that there were no Power Six schools in the CBI that the new NIT provided a space for every Power Six school that wanted a post-season consolation tournament spot.

The only reserved spots for non-Power-conference schools are for non-Power-conference schools in the first four out -- which will reliably be fewer than four non-power-conference reserved spots.

Every other non-Power conference school are the equivalent of Go5 schools that are secondary affiliations for bowls at the bottom tier of a P5 conference's bowls ... there to make up the numbers, depending on how many spots remain after all of the Power Conference schools take their spot.

(03-20-2024 12:55 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

I went over the list on page 2 of this thread. It is a fake.

The poster took the 7 confirmed schools from ESPN reporting, then added 6 Pac-12 schools (5 with losing records and NET above 100 ... 95 was the highest net taken), threw in Maryland, FSU and St. Bony to try and look credible.

He got a lucky hit on UW, who informed the NCAA on Friday they would not accept if invited as they were letting the coaching staff go. Technically they did not decline, because they were not offered as a result (but they would have been had they not requested not to be).

Big East 1-4 in the NIT. They didn’t do much to bolster their argument of deserving more teams in the NCAA tournament this year.

Apparently the ACC showed up for the NIT as Wake, VaTech, and BC all advance. Not sure why Syracuse and Pitt turned down the option to play more games. They ended the regular season playing pretty well vs my Heels last year limping into the offseason with personnel issues.

I'd bet a paycheck that IU turned down the NIT simply because they were looking at taking a first round a$$ beating from a mid major on their own court.

(03-20-2024 10:04 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 12:55 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

I went over the list on page 2 of this thread. It is a fake.

The poster took the 7 confirmed schools from ESPN reporting, then added 6 Pac-12 schools (5 with losing records and NET above 100 ... 95 was the highest net taken), threw in Maryland, FSU and St. Bony to try and look credible.

He got a lucky hit on UW, who informed the NCAA on Friday they would not accept if invited as they were letting the coaching staff go. Technically they did not decline, because they were not offered as a result (but they would have been had they not requested not to be).

I replied with this earlier. The NCAA passed a rule that each P6 conference gets two teams slotted for the NIT. With each Pac-12 team who turned them down, the NIT moved to the next Pac-12 team until they ran out of Pac-12 teams. It doesn’t matter if they had a losing record or a 300+ NET.

(03-21-2024 06:15 AM)Owls9878 Wrote:  Big East 1-4 in the NIT. They didn’t do much to bolster their argument of deserving more teams in the NCAA tournament this year.

So, in the also-ran tournament that has no bearing or impact on the regular season just completed, two Big East teams were amongst the first four out of the actual, legitimate championship tournament. One of these teams won their first game in the meaningless tournament, and the other one chose not to participate in said meaningless tournament.

What Providence, Villanova, Butler, and Xavier (a sub-.500 team) do in this, again, meaningless tournament…nobody cares. Looking at the crowds at some of these games, along with the benches, not even the paricipating programs themselves seemed to, either.

I will admit, though, I wouldn’t want to be Kyle Neptune going forward. Also, Rick Pitino and the conference office need to shut up. Teams get bids, conferences don’t. Got an issue? Here’s a tissue.

Both Seton Hall and Villanova had less than 2,000 fans at their games last night. Meanwhile, mid majors like Indiana State and Bradley pulled in about 5,000+. The strength of the NIT now is among high mid majors.

I would prefer to see the NCAA up the monetary reward to participate and bring the tourney back to MSG. No one without a winning record should be allowed in the field. Mid major reg season champions with a NET of no worse than 150 should be auto qualifiers.

(03-21-2024 09:00 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  Both Seton Hall and Villanova had less than 2,000 fans at their games last night. Meanwhile, mid majors like Indiana State and Bradley pulled in about 5,000+. The strength of the NIT now is among high mid majors.

I would prefer to see the NCAA up the monetary reward to participate and bring the tourney back to MSG. No one without a winning record should be allowed in the field. Mid major reg season champions with a NET of no worse than 150 should be auto qualifiers.

Good point. St. Louis Post-Dispatch sent a writer to Indiana State where they drew 6,421. The writer raved about their gameday environment and tweeted it was better than SLU's "by a pretty good margin".
https://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/...0e3e8.html

(03-17-2024 09:37 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-17-2024 07:09 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  Did the major conferences actually ask for the NIT slots or were they just granted? I can't image actually wanting these slots?

It seems like what they would ask for: the right to place at least two schools in the conference among those who want to go, but every school with the freedom to opt out.

As far as whether they wanted those slots, we don't really have to imagine. We know who accepted bids.

The seeds are:

1. Seton Hall (Big East, #2 out), 2. Princeton, 3. Providence (Big East), 4. LSU (SEC)

1. Wake Forest (ACC), 2. tOSU (BigTen), 3. Virginia Tech (ACC), 4. Georgia (SEC)

1. Indiana St. (#3 out), 2. UC (Big12), 3. Bradley, 4. Butler (Big East)

1. Nova (Big East), 2. Utah (PAC-12), 3. Iowa (Big Ten), 4. UCF (Big12)

Unseeded P6:
X (Big East) @ 4. Georgia
Minnesota (BigTen) @ 4. Butler
Boston College (ACC) @ 3. Providence
Kansas State (Big12) @ Iowa

So:
The Big East sent 4 seeded teams, 1 unseeded
The ACC sent 2 seeded teams, 1 unseeded
The Big Ten sent 2 seeded teams, 1 unseeded
The Big12 sent 2 seeded teams, 1 unseeded
The SEC sent 2 seeded teams
The PAC-12 sent 1 seeded team


There were three non-P6 seeds, Indiana State as one of the first four out, Princeton, and Bradley.

So (1) five of the six P6 conferences took all of their guaranteed slots, so we can presume they "wanted" them, (2) four of the P6 conferences took more than their two guaranteed slots, so we can presume they "really wanted" them, and (3) all four of the unseeded P6 schools are away to a P6 school, so it looks like the P6 schools that aren't offered a hosting spot "want" the slot more if it's away to a P6 school.

But that wasn't how it was supposed to work. The P6 got two AQ bids apiece, which went to the two highest-ranked teams in each conference (per NET rankings) who missed the NCAA tournament. By that rationale, AQ bids should have gone to:

ACC: Pitt (declined bid), Wake Forest
Big East: St. John's (declined bid), Villanova
Big Ten: Ohio State, Iowa
Big XII: Oklahoma (declined bid), Cincinnati
Pac-12: Utah, Washington (declined bid)
SEC: LSU,, Ole Miss (declined bid)

So that's 5 of 12 teams who earned AQ bids that declined them I would argue that the bids awarded to Virginia Tech, Seton Hall and UCF were, in reality, at-large rather than AQ bids.

I was thinking the same thing
Indiana wanted no parts of Indiana St

(03-21-2024 09:24 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 09:00 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  Both Seton Hall and Villanova had less than 2,000 fans at their games last night. Meanwhile, mid majors like Indiana State and Bradley pulled in about 5,000+. The strength of the NIT now is among high mid majors.

I would prefer to see the NCAA up the monetary reward to participate and bring the tourney back to MSG. No one without a winning record should be allowed in the field. Mid major reg season champions with a NET of no worse than 150 should be auto qualifiers.

Good point. St. Louis Post-Dispatch sent a writer to Indiana State where they drew 6,421. The writer raved about their gameday environment and tweeted it was better than SLU's "by a pretty good margin".
https://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/...0e3e8.html

Which begs the question - is SLU really an upgrade of Indiana State?

(03-21-2024 11:11 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 09:24 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 09:00 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  Both Seton Hall and Villanova had less than 2,000 fans at their games last night. Meanwhile, mid majors like Indiana State and Bradley pulled in about 5,000+. The strength of the NIT now is among high mid majors.

I would prefer to see the NCAA up the monetary reward to participate and bring the tourney back to MSG. No one without a winning record should be allowed in the field. Mid major reg season champions with a NET of no worse than 150 should be auto qualifiers.

Good point. St. Louis Post-Dispatch sent a writer to Indiana State where they drew 6,421. The writer raved about their gameday environment and tweeted it was better than SLU's "by a pretty good margin".
https://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/...0e3e8.html

Which begs the question - is SLU really an upgrade of Indiana State?

$$$$$$

Chaifetz is a billionaire who nearly bought the Bucks and the Marlins and is willing to shell out $2.5 million for a coach. Similar situation to the Kochs in Wichita with Gregg Marshall.

(03-21-2024 11:18 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 11:11 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 09:24 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(03-21-2024 09:00 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  Both Seton Hall and Villanova had less than 2,000 fans at their games last night. Meanwhile, mid majors like Indiana State and Bradley pulled in about 5,000+. The strength of the NIT now is among high mid majors.

I would prefer to see the NCAA up the monetary reward to participate and bring the tourney back to MSG. No one without a winning record should be allowed in the field. Mid major reg season champions with a NET of no worse than 150 should be auto qualifiers.

Good point. St. Louis Post-Dispatch sent a writer to Indiana State where they drew 6,421. The writer raved about their gameday environment and tweeted it was better than SLU's "by a pretty good margin".
https://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/...0e3e8.html

Which begs the question - is SLU really an upgrade of Indiana State?

$$$$$$

Chaifetz is a billionaire who nearly bought the Bucks and the Marlins and is willing to shell out $2.5 million for a coach. Similar situation to the Kochs in Wichita with Gregg Marshall.

Yeah, ISU would have a hard time competing with that number.

(03-21-2024 09:46 AM)tf8693 Wrote:  

(03-17-2024 09:37 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-17-2024 07:09 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  Did the major conferences actually ask for the NIT slots or were they just granted? I can't image actually wanting these slots?

It seems like what they would ask for: the right to place at least two schools in the conference among those who want to go, but every school with the freedom to opt out.

As far as whether they wanted those slots, we don't really have to imagine. We know who accepted bids.

The seeds are:

1. Seton Hall (Big East, #2 out), 2. Princeton, 3. Providence (Big East), 4. LSU (SEC)

1. Wake Forest (ACC), 2. tOSU (BigTen), 3. Virginia Tech (ACC), 4. Georgia (SEC)

1. Indiana St. (#3 out), 2. UC (Big12), 3. Bradley, 4. Butler (Big East)

1. Nova (Big East), 2. Utah (PAC-12), 3. Iowa (Big Ten), 4. UCF (Big12)

Unseeded P6:
X (Big East) @ 4. Georgia
Minnesota (BigTen) @ 4. Butler
Boston College (ACC) @ 3. Providence
Kansas State (Big12) @ Iowa

So:
The Big East sent 4 seeded teams, 1 unseeded
The ACC sent 2 seeded teams, 1 unseeded
The Big Ten sent 2 seeded teams, 1 unseeded
The Big12 sent 2 seeded teams, 1 unseeded
The SEC sent 2 seeded teams
The PAC-12 sent 1 seeded team


There were three non-P6 seeds, Indiana State as one of the first four out, Princeton, and Bradley.

So (1) five of the six P6 conferences took all of their guaranteed slots, so we can presume they "wanted" them, (2) four of the P6 conferences took more than their two guaranteed slots, so we can presume they "really wanted" them, and (3) all four of the unseeded P6 schools are away to a P6 school, so it looks like the P6 schools that aren't offered a hosting spot "want" the slot more if it's away to a P6 school.

But that wasn't how it was supposed to work. The P6 got two AQ bids apiece, which went to the two highest-ranked teams in each conference (per NET rankings) who missed the NCAA tournament. ...

That might have been how the description was understood by the media who covered it when originally announced, but the way that the NCAA describes it doesn't line up with that description:

Quote: A new format for 2024 includes two exempt teams from each of six conferences: Atlantic Coast, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC.

So the concession really does seem to be greater than we originally thought -- two seeded spots available for each of the Power Six conferences, if they had schools who wanted them (as well as up to four seeds available to non-Power Six schools if they are in the first four out -- which the up to 12 "exempt" power conference spots leaves room for even if all first four out are non-power conference schools).

So for the "missing 12th exempt schooll", it seems like the PAC-12 schools who were higher NET schools than 95 thought they would be one and done if they took the bid, and didn't think hosting someone on their home court to deliver a beat down to the home team sounded very appealing, so they demurred.

(03-21-2024 08:40 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 10:04 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 12:55 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

I went over the list on page 2 of this thread. It is a fake.

The poster took the 7 confirmed schools from ESPN reporting, then added 6 Pac-12 schools (5 with losing records and NET above 100 ... 95 was the highest net taken), threw in Maryland, FSU and St. Bony to try and look credible.

He got a lucky hit on UW, who informed the NCAA on Friday they would not accept if invited as they were letting the coaching staff go. Technically they did not decline, because they were not offered as a result (but they would have been had they not requested not to be).

I replied with this earlier. The NCAA passed a rule that each P6 conference gets two teams slotted for the NIT. With each Pac-12 team who turned them down, the NIT moved to the next Pac-12 team until they ran out of Pac-12 teams. It doesn’t matter if they had a losing record or a 300+ NET.

Two were offered. Utah accepted, UW asked not to be invited. Obligation met, full stop. That's it, no requirement to invite anyone else. It's a fabrication to say two from each of the P6 were required to participate.

No source is offered by the poster, the list is a complete fake. (I know people at Stanford, they tell me they were not invited; also they fired the coach)