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

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey UofMTigers, I like your idea! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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)

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Link to post
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...