|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Mar 19, 2024 10:28:58 GMT -8
Even though the NIT was originally the Big Dog of basketball tournaments, has its time come? The Glove recently pointed out that the Great Coach Rick Pitino and several others declined the invite to the NIT this year. I was thinking about it, and I'm not sure it's time to expand the NCAA Tourney from 69 teams, and here's why. When the field was enlarged to 64 teams, I don't believe any conferences had the money-grubbing Conference tournaments. With the Tournaments came automatic qualifiers and teams that would have never otherwise gotten in based on the entire season of play, they take a spot that would have previously been given to an at-large team that played well all year, probably winning 20 games. Maybe it's time to phase out the NIT and get more deserving teams that lost spots to AQ's in the show.
Can you name last year's NIT winner?
Don't even get me started on the CBI.
|
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Mar 19, 2024 10:37:12 GMT -8
Even though the NIT was originally the Big Dog of basketball tournaments, has its time come? The Glove recently pointed out that the Great Coach Rick Pitino and several others declined the invite to the NIT this year. I was thinking about it, and I'm not sure it's time to expand the NCAA Tourney from 69 teams, and here's why. When the field was enlarged to 64 teams, I don't believe any conferences had the money-grubbing Conference tournaments. With the Tournaments came automatic qualifiers and teams that would have never otherwise gotten in based on the entire season of play, they take a spot that would have previously been given to an at-large team that played well all year, probably winning 20 games. Maybe it's time to phase out the NIT and get more deserving teams that lost spots to AQ's in the show. Can you name last year's NIT winner? Don't even get me started on the CBI. CBI- High Point is the number 1 seed this year.............there's also the CIT with Tarleton State and Austin Peay as the favorites. Sounds exciting, doesn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Mar 19, 2024 10:43:34 GMT -8
Even though the NIT was originally the Big Dog of basketball tournaments, has its time come? The Glove recently pointed out that the Great Coach Rick Pitino and several others declined the invite to the NIT this year. I was thinking about it, and I'm not sure it's time to expand the NCAA Tourney from 69 teams, and here's why. When the field was enlarged to 64 teams, I don't believe any conferences had the money-grubbing Conference tournaments. With the Tournaments came automatic qualifiers and teams that would have never otherwise gotten in based on the entire season of play, they take a spot that would have previously been given to an at-large team that played well all year, probably winning 20 games. Maybe it's time to phase out the NIT and get more deserving teams that lost spots to AQ's in the show. Can you name last year's NIT winner? Don't even get me started on the CBI. Many conferences have staged a tournament for decades, long before the field expanded to 64. The Pac-10/12 and Ivy leagues were the last two add tournaments. The ACC and Southern Conference tournaments have existed since the 1950s. Again, the conference determines who gets the automatic bid, NOT THE NCAA. If the conferences wanted it to go to the regular-season champion, they would designate if to be so. North Texas won last year's NIT. I'm sure it was a big deal for them. |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Mar 19, 2024 11:42:45 GMT -8
Even though the NIT was originally the Big Dog of basketball tournaments, has its time come? The Glove recently pointed out that the Great Coach Rick Pitino and several others declined the invite to the NIT this year. I was thinking about it, and I'm not sure it's time to expand the NCAA Tourney from 69 teams, and here's why. When the field was enlarged to 64 teams, I don't believe any conferences had the money-grubbing Conference tournaments. With the Tournaments came automatic qualifiers and teams that would have never otherwise gotten in based on the entire season of play, they take a spot that would have previously been given to an at-large team that played well all year, probably winning 20 games. Maybe it's time to phase out the NIT and get more deserving teams that lost spots to AQ's in the show. Can you name last year's NIT winner? Don't even get me started on the CBI. Many conferences have staged a tournament for decades, long before the field expanded to 64. The Pac-10/12 and Ivy leagues were the last two add tournaments. The ACC and Southern Conference tournaments have existed since the 1950s. Again, the conference determines who gets the automatic bid, NOT THE NCAA. If the conferences wanted it to go to the regular-season champion, they would designate if to be so. North Texas won last year's NIT. I'm sure it was a big deal for them. Would you agree that there are many more tournaments with automatic qualifiers than there were in 1975? 1985? Also, be honest, did you look the NIT champ up? |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Mar 19, 2024 11:56:26 GMT -8
Even though the NIT was originally the Big Dog of basketball tournaments, has its time come? The Glove recently pointed out that the Great Coach Rick Pitino and several others declined the invite to the NIT this year. I was thinking about it, and I'm not sure it's time to expand the NCAA Tourney from 69 teams, and here's why. When the field was enlarged to 64 teams, I don't believe any conferences had the money-grubbing Conference tournaments. With the Tournaments came automatic qualifiers and teams that would have never otherwise gotten in based on the entire season of play, they take a spot that would have previously been given to an at-large team that played well all year, probably winning 20 games. Maybe it's time to phase out the NIT and get more deserving teams that lost spots to AQ's in the show. Can you name last year's NIT winner? Don't even get me started on the CBI. Many conferences have staged a tournament for decades, long before the field expanded to 64. The Pac-10/12 and Ivy leagues were the last two add tournaments. The ACC and Southern Conference tournaments have existed since the 1950s. Again, the conference determines who gets the automatic bid, NOT THE NCAA. If the conferences wanted it to go to the regular-season champion, they would designate if to be so. North Texas won last year's NIT. I'm sure it was a big deal for them. I’m sure it was a big deal to N Texas players and fans. We won the crappy CBI and it was a big deal to us. But there’s no way anybody in N Texas gave a damn about that. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Mar 19, 2024 13:33:47 GMT -8
Many conferences have staged a tournament for decades, long before the field expanded to 64. The Pac-10/12 and Ivy leagues were the last two add tournaments. The ACC and Southern Conference tournaments have existed since the 1950s. Again, the conference determines who gets the automatic bid, NOT THE NCAA. If the conferences wanted it to go to the regular-season champion, they would designate if to be so. North Texas won last year's NIT. I'm sure it was a big deal for them. Would you agree that there are many more tournaments with automatic qualifiers than there were in 1975? 1985? >>> Yes. But that doesn't matter, because in the past each conference still had an auto qualifier. It just went to the regular-season champ instead of the tournament champ. The largest increase in tournament qualifiers is in the at-large category, which came about when the tournament began allowing more than one team from each conference to qualify, I think in 1976 (Indiana-Michigan final). Also, be honest, did you look the NIT champ up? >>> No. I have a fraternity brother whose kids went to UNT so he's a big fan and he reminded us about it during the year. |
|
|
|
Post by beaverinohio on Mar 19, 2024 16:04:05 GMT -8
Unless you are named Wilky, the NIT has been pretty much irrelevant for years except for maybe the teams and the fans of those who get to NYC each year. I’ll spend more time Thursday watching NCAA than I have over the last 10-15 years watching NIT. Was watching Wagner and Howard in play-in game and at half channel surfed and saw Xavier was playing Georgia in NIT. Watched about 3 minutes and that could well be only NIT I see this year.
All that said, like minor bowls in football, NIT has some value and more power to them if they want to hold it. Nice little reward for kids and gives a chance to gain experience. Also can be a nice showcase for players who may enter portal. I don’t know if it played a part, but Justin Harmon’s NIT for UVU last year likely didn’t hurt his chances of catching on with Illinois this season.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Mar 19, 2024 16:45:05 GMT -8
Many conferences have staged a tournament for decades, long before the field expanded to 64. The Pac-10/12 and Ivy leagues were the last two add tournaments. The ACC and Southern Conference tournaments have existed since the 1950s. Again, the conference determines who gets the automatic bid, NOT THE NCAA. If the conferences wanted it to go to the regular-season champion, they would designate if to be so. North Texas won last year's NIT. I'm sure it was a big deal for them. Would you agree that there are many more tournaments with automatic qualifiers than there were in 1975? 1985? Also, be honest, did you look the NIT champ up? Fun fact. 1975 was the last time until 2021 that Oregon State officially won a game in the Tournament. Oregon State won two games in 1982 but vacated both after the fact. 1975 was the very first year that second-place teams were permitted to play in the NCAA Tournament, the field expanding from 25 to 32 teams. There were eight tournaments with automatic qualifiers in 1975: ACC (North Carolina), East Coast (La Salle), ECAC Metro (Rutgers), ECAC New England (Boston College), ECAC Southern (Georgetown), ECAC Upstate (Syracuse), Ohio Valley (Middle Tennessee), and Southern (Furman). There were 12 other conferences, who did not hold tournaments: Big Eight (Kansas), Big Sky (Montana), Big Ten (Indiana), Ivy League (Penn), MAC (Central Michigan), Missouri Valley (Louisville), Pacific Coast Athletic (San Diego State), Pac-8 (UCLA), SEC (Kentucky), Southwest (Texas A&M), WAC (Arizona State), and West Coast Athletic (UNLV). It should be noted that the four ECACs were not conferences but were loose groupings of Northeastern Independent basketball teams. There were only 12 at large bids in 1975. They were awarded to Maryland, which had won the ACC Regular Season title but had lost in the Semifinal to NC State; Marquette, an independent not allied with ECAC; Alabama, SEC Co-Champion but second in tiebreakers to Kentucky; Notre Dame, a second independent not allied with ECAC; Oregon State, second place in the Pac-8; Cincinnati, a third independent not allied with ECAC; UTEP, second in the WAC; Creighton and Utah State, two more independents not allied with ECAC; Kansas State, second in the Big Eight; Michigan, second in the Big Ten; and New Mexico State, second in the Missouri Valley. 1974-75 was Oregon State's first second place finish in the Pac-8. The last time that Oregon State had finished second was in 1966-67 in the AAWU. That team finished 14-14, so it is unlikely that Oregon State would have made the 32-team tournament, had one been held in 1967. That last time that Oregon State finished second before 1974-75 with an opportunity to play in a 32-team tournament likely would have been 1957-58 after Oregon State lost the Pacific Coast Conference Championship Game to Cal. ECAC awarded four bids until 1977 after the Eastern Collegiate Basketball League was formed (later the Atlantic 10). ECAC then combined the Southern and Upstate bids into one combined bid. In between 1979 and 1980, all of the ECAC New England teams joined the Big East. ECAC only awarded two bids thereafter. The remaining ECAC teams either joined a different conference or joined the ECAC-Metro Conference (later the Northeast Conference) or ECAC South Conference (later the MAAC) in 1982. 1985 was the first year of the 64-team Tournament and the final year without a shot clock. There were 25 tournaments with automatic qualifiers. Four conferences did not have tournaments: Big Ten, Ivy League, Pac-10, and West Coast Athletic (later the WCC). There were 35 at large bids. The Pac-10 and West Coast Athletic both started up Tournaments in 1987. West West Coast Athletic/WCC has continued its tournament ever since. The Pac-10 shut down its Tournament between the 1990 and 1991 seasons. The Big Ten started its tournament in 1998. The Pac-10 restarted its tournament back in 2002. The Ivy League started its tournament up in 2017. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Mar 19, 2024 16:59:40 GMT -8
Unless you are named Wilky, the NIT has been pretty much irrelevant for years except for maybe the teams and the fans of those who get to NYC each year. I’ll spend more time Thursday watching NCAA than I have over the last 10-15 years watching NIT. Was watching Wagner and Howard in play-in game and at half channel surfed and saw Xavier was playing Georgia in NIT. Watched about 3 minutes and that could well be only NIT I see this year. All that said, like minor bowls in football, NIT has some value and more power to them if they want to hold it. Nice little reward for kids and gives a chance to gain experience. Also can be a nice showcase for players who may enter portal. I don’t know if it played a part, but Justin Harmon’s NIT for UVU last year likely didn’t hurt his chances of catching on with Illinois this season. I have heard that NIT units are not bad, somewhere north of 20% of Tournament units. Not nearly as important as Tournament units, of course. But I have heard that you will make more as NIT Champion than you would going one-and-done in the Tournament. Those were old numbers, too. I have heard that Fox made a play for a new Tournament to replace the NIT this year. But they retooled the NIT to change the auto-bids. They got rid of regular season champions earning auto-bids. Instead, each Power Six Conference received at least two invites. (Washington turned down the Pac-12's second invite.) It is possible that the change of format also will increase the payouts, but I do not know that for certain. |
|
|
|
Post by gnawitall on Mar 19, 2024 17:06:58 GMT -8
Would you agree that there are many more tournaments with automatic qualifiers than there were in 1975? 1985? Also, be honest, did you look the NIT champ up? Fun fact. 1975 was the last time until 2021 that Oregon State officially won a game in the Tournament. Oregon State won two games in 1982 but vacated both after the fact. 1975 was the very first year that second-place teams were permitted to play in the NCAA Tournament, the field expanding from 25 to 32 teams. There were eight tournaments with automatic qualifiers in 1975: ACC (North Carolina), East Coast (La Salle), ECAC Metro (Rutgers), ECAC New England (Boston College), ECAC Southern (Georgetown), ECAC Upstate (Syracuse), Ohio Valley (Middle Tennessee), and Southern (Furman). There were 12 other conferences, who did not hold tournaments: Big Eight (Kansas), Big Sky (Montana), Big Ten (Indiana), Ivy League (Penn), MAC (Central Michigan), Missouri Valley (Louisville), Pacific Coast Athletic (San Diego State), Pac-8 (UCLA), SEC (Kentucky), Southwest (Texas A&M), WAC (Arizona State), and West Coast Athletic (UNLV). It should be noted that the four ECACs were not conferences but were loose groupings of Northeastern Independent basketball teams. There were only 12 at large bids in 1975. They were awarded to Maryland, which had won the ACC Regular Season title but had lost in the Semifinal to NC State; Marquette, an independent not allied with ECAC; Alabama, SEC Co-Champion but second in tiebreakers to Kentucky; Notre Dame, a second independent not allied with ECAC; Oregon State, second place in the Pac-8; Cincinnati, a third independent not allied with ECAC; UTEP, second in the WAC; Creighton and Utah State, two more independents not allied with ECAC; Kansas State, second in the Big Eight; Michigan, second in the Big Ten; and New Mexico State, second in the Missouri Valley. 1974-75 was Oregon State's first second place finish in the Pac-8. The last time that Oregon State had finished second was in 1966-67 in the AAWU. That team finished 14-14, so it is unlikely that Oregon State would have made the 32-team tournament, had one been held in 1967. That last time that Oregon State finished second before 1974-75 with an opportunity to play in a 32-team tournament likely would have been 1957-58 after Oregon State lost the Pacific Coast Conference Championship Game to Cal. ECAC awarded four bids until 1977 after the Eastern Collegiate Basketball League was formed (later the Atlantic 10). ECAC then combined the Southern and Upstate bids into one combined bid. In between 1979 and 1980, all of the ECAC New England teams joined the Big East. ECAC only awarded two bids thereafter. The remaining ECAC teams either joined a different conference or joined the ECAC-Metro Conference (later the Northeast Conference) or ECAC South Conference (later the MAAC) in 1982. 1985 was the first year of the 64-team Tournament and the final year without a shot clock. There were 25 tournaments with automatic qualifiers. Four conferences did not have tournaments: Big Ten, Ivy League, Pac-10, and West Coast Athletic (later the WCC). There were 35 at large bids. The Pac-10 and West Coast Athletic both started up Tournaments in 1987. West West Coast Athletic/WCC has continued its tournament ever since. The Pac-10 shut down its Tournament between the 1990 and 1991 seasons. The Big Ten started its tournament in 1998. The Pac-10 restarted its tournament back in 2002. The Ivy League started its tournament up in 2017. I knew we had a season vacated I just didn't realize it was the year we lost to Georgetown. My poor memory. |
|
|
|
Post by beavfan14 on Mar 20, 2024 8:42:23 GMT -8
I really don't understand when people say the NIT is irrelevant. If you don't want to watch it, then don't. Most of these kids will never play competitive basketball again, so why are a couple of extra games bad? The vast majority of these players don't make money, or have NIL deals or whatever, they play because they love to play basketball. Do I know who won the CBI the year before or the year after OSU? Nope, but who cares, I enjoyed watching the Beavers play a couple more home games, then win a post season tournament. So many people complain that the "rich" are taking over all the football playoffs, and that only blue bloods truly ever really win the basketball championship. So here is a chance for some small schools, or some major schools who had a decent year, play more and have a chance at a championship. Why is that bad? I agree they shouldn't invite sub .500 teams, but if teams like St Johns want to decline, then that's on them. Like I said, I really don't understand not wanting college age student have another opportunity to play more. For their friends and families to watch them play for a championship, even if its not the NCAA championship. These players put just as much into their seasons as anyone, sometimes more, so why not reward them with a chance to play for the NIT championship at Madison Square Garden? If I'm a North Texas player, or fan, heck yeah I'm excited. And if you're not a fan, don't watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Mar 20, 2024 9:31:35 GMT -8
I really don't understand when people say the NIT is irrelevant. If you don't want to watch it, then don't. Most of these kids will never play competitive basketball again, so why are a couple of extra games bad? The vast majority of these players don't make money, or have NIL deals or whatever, they play because they love to play basketball. Do I know who won the CBI the year before or the year after OSU? Nope, but who cares, I enjoyed watching the Beavers play a couple more home games, then win a post season tournament. So many people complain that the "rich" are taking over all the football playoffs, and that only blue bloods truly ever really win the basketball championship. So here is a chance for some small schools, or some major schools who had a decent year, play more and have a chance at a championship. Why is that bad? I agree they shouldn't invite sub .500 teams, but if teams like St Johns want to decline, then that's on them. Like I said, I really don't understand not wanting college age student have another opportunity to play more. For their friends and families to watch them play for a championship, even if its not the NCAA championship. These players put just as much into their seasons as anyone, sometimes more, so why not reward them with a chance to play for the NIT championship at Madison Square Garden? If I'm a North Texas player, or fan, heck yeah I'm excited. And if you're not a fan, don't watch. Noted. However, if this is directed at my opening post, you didn't read it thoroughly. The point was to expand the NCAA Tourney field to possibly equalize the "spot stealers", the teams that wouldn't otherwise qualify but won their conference tournament. That would allow teams like St Johns, Seton Hall, Pitt, Indiana St, etc. that lost one game in a conference money-grubbing tournament to be recognized for a season's worth of work and playing in the real tourney. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Mar 20, 2024 9:44:53 GMT -8
As of this week it appears the SEC (Sankey) and at least one B10 coach (Izzo) want the power conferences to also control the NCAA hoop tournament. Both stating that giving out auto berths to any mid major should be done away with or looked at. Izzo went as far as saying fans don't like "upsets" overall... maybe it is exciting in an opening round, but fans grow less enamored later on.
It seems the NCAA best put it's foot down HARD and stamp out any early movement for major change to make it similar to the CFP. It's the biggest money maker they have and they best not lose control of it. The NIT concept is exactly what should happen in football. Band the G5 and have not P4 teams that want and have their own "CFC"... I have to believe once that movement began there would be a solid media deal that would be far better (would not take much) than the current proposed dispersals.
Combine with the unity, and CFC teams could also put a limit on playing P5 teams... maybe schedule one per year per school.
|
|
|
|
Post by beavfan14 on Mar 20, 2024 12:29:40 GMT -8
I really don't understand when people say the NIT is irrelevant. If you don't want to watch it, then don't. Most of these kids will never play competitive basketball again, so why are a couple of extra games bad? The vast majority of these players don't make money, or have NIL deals or whatever, they play because they love to play basketball. Do I know who won the CBI the year before or the year after OSU? Nope, but who cares, I enjoyed watching the Beavers play a couple more home games, then win a post season tournament. So many people complain that the "rich" are taking over all the football playoffs, and that only blue bloods truly ever really win the basketball championship. So here is a chance for some small schools, or some major schools who had a decent year, play more and have a chance at a championship. Why is that bad? I agree they shouldn't invite sub .500 teams, but if teams like St Johns want to decline, then that's on them. Like I said, I really don't understand not wanting college age student have another opportunity to play more. For their friends and families to watch them play for a championship, even if its not the NCAA championship. These players put just as much into their seasons as anyone, sometimes more, so why not reward them with a chance to play for the NIT championship at Madison Square Garden? If I'm a North Texas player, or fan, heck yeah I'm excited. And if you're not a fan, don't watch. Noted. However, if this is directed at my opening post, you didn't read it thoroughly. The point was to expand the NCAA Tourney field to possibly equalize the "spot stealers", the teams that wouldn't otherwise qualify but won their conference tournament. That would allow teams like St Johns, Seton Hall, Pitt, Indiana St, etc. that lost one game in a conference money-grubbing tournament to be recognized for a season's worth of work and playing in the real tourney. Wasn't directed at anyone in particular, just my opinion. However, I will disagree about expanding the tournament, I think it's fine how it is. Wanna make it? Win more games, or win your conference tournament. The teams that are declining the NIT probably wouldn't win the ncaa tournament anyways, nor will the smaller schools that won their tournaments. Yes either could make a run, but who knows. I loved having FAU and San Diego State in the Final 4 last year. Even Miami and UCONN were a little bit lower of a seed. It was more fun to watch then the same group of 8+ teams that often vie for the championship. I love watching the smaller conference tournaments as well, they are usually more exciting with everything on the line. There is a reason that March Madness is the most popular postseason. It's the, who's in, who's out. Did some small team just knock out some well known team from the bubble? If you expand the tournament and make it easier to qualify, what's the regular season for? Again, my biggest point was, these are players that for the most part won't play highly competitive basketball again. I personally see nothing wrong with the NIT or CBI. If you don't want to play in them, that's your choice. If you don't want to watch them, that's also your choice. But the teams that are in them, earned them, (unless below .500 that's ridiculous) and should be excited to keep playing, that's all. |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Mar 20, 2024 13:25:06 GMT -8
Noted. However, if this is directed at my opening post, you didn't read it thoroughly. The point was to expand the NCAA Tourney field to possibly equalize the "spot stealers", the teams that wouldn't otherwise qualify but won their conference tournament. That would allow teams like St Johns, Seton Hall, Pitt, Indiana St, etc. that lost one game in a conference money-grubbing tournament to be recognized for a season's worth of work and playing in the real tourney. Wasn't directed at anyone in particular, just my opinion. However, I will disagree about expanding the tournament, I think it's fine how it is. Wanna make it? Win more games, or win your conference tournament. The teams that are declining the NIT probably wouldn't win the ncaa tournament anyways, nor will the smaller schools that won their tournaments. Yes either could make a run, but who knows. I loved having FAU and San Diego State in the Final 4 last year. Even Miami and UCONN were a little bit lower of a seed. It was more fun to watch then the same group of 8+ teams that often vie for the championship. I love watching the smaller conference tournaments as well, they are usually more exciting with everything on the line. There is a reason that March Madness is the most popular postseason. It's the, who's in, who's out. Did some small team just knock out some well known team from the bubble? If you expand the tournament and make it easier to qualify, what's the regular season for? Again, my biggest point was, these are players that for the most part won't play highly competitive basketball again. I personally see nothing wrong with the NIT or CBI. If you don't want to play in them, that's your choice. If you don't want to watch them, that's also your choice. But the teams that are in them, earned them, (unless below .500 that's ridiculous) and should be excited to keep playing, that's all. Yeah, I get it, but when you say " Wanna make it? Win more games, or win your conference tournament.", it's incorrect and drives home the point I'm trying to make. How it is for many teams is win more games and win your conference tournament. Indiana St won 28 games but played a clunker in their tournament. No invite. St Johns, Oklahoma, Seton Hall, and Pittsburgh, with a combined 82 wins, left out. 17-15 Wagner is in. So is a team called Longwood I guess. Montana St is 17-17, 9-9 in the Big Sky and they're in. Wheee!!! But like I said, I get it. Enjoy the tournament that reportedly our own Oregon St Beavers turned down. If true, that's all you need to know about it. |
|
