UofMTigers Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 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) There are lots of P5s and 'big name' basketball programs that won't play in the 'pay for play' tourneys... 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Bauer Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 No, the NIT is stupid. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UofMTigers Posted February 25, 2017 Author Share Posted February 25, 2017 23 minutes ago, Jack Bauer said: No, the NIT is stupid. what makes it stupid? It's been around since 1938 and many teams use it as a springboard to the NCAAs the next season. the CIT, and CBI...that's stupid...big teams want nothing to do with it and often decline the bid. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Bauer Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 31 minutes ago, UofMTigers said: what makes it stupid? It's been around since 1938 and many teams use it as a springboard to the NCAAs the next season. the CIT, and CBI...that's stupid...big teams want nothing to do with it and often decline the bid. It's like the lesser bowl games. I like the idea of getting extra practice, but I don't think that tournament needs expanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UofMTigers Posted February 25, 2017 Author Share Posted February 25, 2017 4 minutes ago, Jack Bauer said: It's like the lesser bowl games. I like the idea of getting extra practice, but I don't think that tournament needs expanding. then why do the CBI and CIT exist? I mean, NIT games are on TV, tend to draw well, can end in a fun trip to MSG, plus it can springboard you to the NCAAs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BacksThePack Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 I don't think the NIT needs, but would love if we had more tournaments with teams playing other teams of similar level, sorta like the bowl system. The more teams that end the season on a high note, the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crixus Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Hey UofMTigers, I like your idea! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpc8302 Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 The women's NIT has a field of 64, but it isn't run by the NCAA. If the NCAA were to go to a 64 team men's NIT, I'd like the women's set up. 32 conferences each get a rep + 32 at-large berths. Regular season champs are automatically the conference rep if they don't make the tourney, but the conferences pick their reps otherwise. Also, teams submit bids to host tourney games. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UofMTigers Posted February 25, 2017 Author Share Posted February 25, 2017 27 minutes ago, crixus said: Hey UofMTigers, I like your idea! Thx. I would also add that I could see the Vegas tourney surviving if they stick to western teams with .500 or better records. (and stick to 8 teams) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SalinasSpartan Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 1 hour ago, UofMTigers said: then why do the CBI and CIT exist? I mean, NIT games are on TV, tend to draw well, can end in a fun trip to MSG, plus it can springboard you to the NCAAs. Honest question, is there any correlation between teams that make a deep run in the NIT playing well in the NCAA tourney the following season? I've heard people make this point (and I agree with it) before but I've always wondered if there is any proof it's true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UofMTigers Posted February 25, 2017 Author Share Posted February 25, 2017 9 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said: Honest question, is there any correlation between teams that make a deep run in the NIT playing well in the NCAA tourney the following season? I've heard people make this point (and I agree with it) before but I've always wondered if there is any proof it's true. I remember an article from 2015 that said of the previous 20 NIT champs, I believe 11 followed up with NCAA trips with the median NCAA seed being a 7. (Michigan was the high point going from NIT champ to 3 seed the next season in 1998 I think) can't find the article though... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWC Tex Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 I don't think the NIT could afford it to expand to 64 teams. At that number, they'll have to switch it to pay to play...at least probably in first couple rounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebasour Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 I know Kenpom rankings aren't the end all be all, but hypothetically speaking looking at the Kenpom rankings and saying the top 68 are your tourney teams and 69-132 are your NIT teams (I know this isn't perfect) your 8-9 seed NIT matchups would be Boise/NC State, Richmond/Akron, Loyola-Chicago/Stanford, and Ohio/UNC-Asheville That's not cherry picking either, those kind of games would be the mean. I personally wouldn't oppose this, but those aren't exactly buzz worthy games. I'm not sure what the incentive for the NIT to expand would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Bauer Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 2 hours ago, UofMTigers said: then why do the CBI and CIT exist? I mean, NIT games are on TV, tend to draw well, can end in a fun trip to MSG, plus it can springboard you to the NCAAs. They probably shouldn't. We don't need to invite every single team to a postseason tournament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebasour Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 How does the revenue distribution work for the NIT? Does the NIT get a cut of the ticket revenue? Or is it just TV money for them? Because as is many NIT games are already relegated to ESPN3, this would mean 25 or so extra games relegated to there too which wouldn't really bring them TV money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UofMTigers Posted February 25, 2017 Author Share Posted February 25, 2017 disclaimer: my team is now looking at 3 straight seasons with possibly no post season because most big time programs are 'NCAA/NIT or bust' we won't accept a CBI bid even though we were offered one last season with 19 wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brillio Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Didn't a women's sport just add some sort of NIT-esque postseason tourney? I wanna say it was softball.. i wouldnt mind seeing something like this for baseball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebasour Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 1 minute ago, UofMTigers said: disclaimer: my team is now looking at 3 straight season with possibly no post season because most big time programs are 'NCAA/NIT or bust' we won't accept a CBI bid even though we were offered one last season with 19 wins. I don't see why fans would oppose it? Less than 20% of the 351 D1 teams make the dance, and expanding the NIT would still only mean a little over a third of teams make a non pay to play tourney altogether. There's plenty of decent 18-20 win teams in smaller leagues who get shut out, and I'd have no problem with them going to the consolation tournament. That said I just question what's in it for the NIT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebasour Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 I do love this video though 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roughrider Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 3 hours ago, UofMTigers said: what makes it stupid? It's been around since 1938 and many teams use it as a springboard to the NCAAs the next season. the CIT, and CBI...that's stupid...big teams want nothing to do with it and often decline the bid. I'm with you. IF it could wipe out the other pay to play tournaments, all of them, then it's a no brainer to expand the second tier tournament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...