Jump to content
UofMTigers

should the NIT be expanded to 64 teams?

Should the NIT be expanded to 64 teams?  

49 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the NIT be expanded to 64 teams?

    • yes, expand to 64 teams
    • No, leave it at 32 teams


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, renoskier said:

You probably think there's too many bowl games also.

What kind of fan wants fewer games?

Does someone force you to watch?

If the quality of a team in one of the absurd 6 and 6 bowls is not relevant why not invite 0 and 12 teams to play?  Apparently the talent and skill level along with the ability to play team ball is not relevant to you  or perhaps all teams should be permitted to go to a bowl or to the NIT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, 1066 said:

I also believe the number of bowl games is excessive. They no longer have any meaning or value if teams that can not even have a winning record against pathetic opposition are qualified to go to bowls. For example look for the Sun Belt and CUSA teams that have gone to some bowls. Is a 6 and 6 CUSA team really qualified for post season play?

I don't like inviting 6-6 teams to a bowl game. I also think they should have a winning record in their conference but that part is a discussion for another day.

I also don't like inviting basketball teams with a .500 record or losing record to post season tournaments either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, wolfpack1 said:

I don't like inviting 6-6 teams to a bowl game. I also think they should have a winning record in their conference but that part is a discussion for another day.

I also don't like inviting basketball teams with a .500 record or losing record to post season tournaments either.

Good, we agree on these things. Now someone should try to convince the schools, coaches and AD's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheSanDiegan said:

IMO there are too many bowl games. I rather watch a handful of great games than a f*ckton of shitty ones. :shrug:

I mean, do we really need a Visine Dogshit Dilbert Bowl? 

 

 

1 hour ago, wolfpack1 said:

Actually I do believe there are to many bowl games.

 

1 hour ago, 1066 said:

I also believe the number of bowl games is excessive. They no longer have any meaning or value if teams that can not even have a winning record against pathetic opposition are qualified to go to bowls. For example look for the Sun Belt and CUSA teams that have gone to some bowls. Is a 6 and 6 CUSA team really qualified for post season play?

 

56 minutes ago, 1066 said:

If the quality of a team in one of the absurd 6 and 6 bowls is not relevant why not invite 0 and 12 teams to play?  Apparently the talent and skill level along with the ability to play team ball is not relevant to you  or perhaps all teams should be permitted to go to a bowl or to the NIT.

 

44 minutes ago, wolfpack1 said:

I don't like inviting 6-6 teams to a bowl game. I also think they should have a winning record in their conference but that part is a discussion for another day.

I also don't like inviting basketball teams with a .500 record or losing record to post season tournaments either.

 

41 minutes ago, 1066 said:

Good, we agree on these things. Now someone should try to convince the schools, coaches and AD's.

A very simple solution.......don't watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, renoskier said:

 

 

 

 

 

A very simple solution.......don't watch.

I don't watch many of them but that doesn't mean we can't express an opinion about being to many bowl games and how teams that are .500 or below shouldn't be going to bowls or post season basketball tournaments.An with falling attendance and ratings I don't think I am the only one thinking the same thing.

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/25/2017 at 5:53 PM, brillio said:

I don't usually agree with you on much, but I could get behind the NIT expanding to get rid of the other tournaments, as long as the little guys get preference.  I have no interest in watching a 15-loss ACC/Big Ten team.  

I’m not either, but it gives schools like Norfolk St, etc a chance to play them when they normally wouldn’t have a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, soupslam1 said:

Expand the NIT to 64 and get rid of the CBI and CIT. 

Agreed.  They can put these 64 second-chance teams in the play-at-home NIT that culminates at Madison Square Garden.  Getting rid of the CBI and CIT would simplify it.  Wikipedia says there's 347 NCAA D-I men's basketball teams.

Why not also have the NCAA Tourney also get rid of those 4 play-in games that were added in 2011?  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mike Bronson said:

Mike Bronson feels the same way about auto-qualifying bids in the tournament.  More NC States and Indianas fewer Belmonts....let them figure it in an expanded NIT.

Then you’re killing a not-insignificant part of what gives the NCAA tournament its appeal: the opportunity for every team in Division I, no matter how remote, to win a national championship. 

A big part of the first weekend of the tournament is seeing the little guys getting their shot. The Belmont’s, the Loyola-Chicago’s, the George Mason’s going on a run ignite way, way more conversation than a pedestrian-at-best NC State or Indiana, who cannot even muster a .500 league record, getting a third chance to do anything. One of the least exciting things about the first round is seeing two utterly mediocre power conference at-large teams squaring off in a 7-10 or 8-9 game. Yawn.

If you want to limit the tournament to just the top conferences, then let them peel away and do their own thing. I’m not filling out a bracket for that, or watching much of it other than the very top 3-4 teams play.

As for the NIT, I’d be ok with going to 40 or 48 so that each conference can have at least one team in, but 64 isn’t needed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like David Letterman's idea, let all 315 D1 teams (or whatever the # is now) compete in the NCAA tournament. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, crixus said:

I like David Letterman's idea, let all 315 D1 teams (or whatever the # is now) compete in the NCAA tournament. :D

Essentially they do. The #315 team has a shot at the national championship if they win their conference tournament which is in reality the beginning of the NCAA tiurnament. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, crixus said:

I like David Letterman's idea, let all 315 D1 teams (or whatever the # is now) compete in the NCAA tournament. :D

Or maybe have a battle royal and then the last 64 survivors can go into a tournament? That would be like double the entertainment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I like the idea of a 68 team NCAAT and a 64 team NIT with no other postseason tourneys. 132 teams would equal 38% of teams making the postseason. To me that is fine. 

The MAJOR problem would be all the sub .500 power 5 teams that would make the NIT. For example just say if you are in the top 115 of the NET you make the NIT (I know NET is not the sole criteria but just for easy of example lets say it is).  That would equal 14 sub .500 teams making the NIT (see below*) . To get around this I say just give ALL 32 conferences an auto bid to the NIT. This can just be the highest ranked team in your conference that did not make the NCAAT. ie for the ACC it would be their 8th place team NC State, for a traditional 1 bid league conference it would either be their 1 seed (if they didn't win the conference tourney) or their two seed. This would add another 10-15 or so "lesser" schools (ie not ranked in top 132 of NET) BUT school that finish well in there conference and in most cases would be above .500.  

My tourney set up would be top 16 seeds host a 4 team bracket. They play out those brackets on the Tuesday and Wednesday before the NCAAT. You would have 32 games on the Tuesday and 16 on the Wednesday. Honestly it would be a nice pre NCAAT tourney. Then the final 16 teams would just place out like the typical NIT (higher seed host round of 16 and quarters, final 4 at MSG). 

*Penn St (14-18),  Missouri (15-17), Oklahoma St  (12-20), Texas A&M (14-18), USC (16-17), Northwestern (13-19), Miami (14-18), UConn (16-17), SMU (15-17), Rutgers (14-17), West Virginia (14-20), Stanford (15-16), Illinois (12-21), Notre Dame (14-19)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RamSack said:

Teams should be required to be at least .500 to play in the NIT.

The old rule with the NIT was that a team that was .500 or worse could not be in the NIT tournament. When NCAA bought the tourney, they changed the rule to where .500 teams could play in the NIT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RoscoesDad
On 2/25/2017 at 3:15 PM, sebasour said:

I do love this video though

 

 

This video never gets old.  The clip of the star player from Xenon School of Hair Design throwing up an airball is gold.

On a side note, it would only take 4-5 extra rounds to expand to 4096 teams.  I am down.  UNLV might be able to make the Fantastic 512.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...