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

58 minutes ago, roughrider said:

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.  

expanding the NIT would get rid of the need for their existence but I don't want them banned...like I said, if the Vegas tourney sticks to 8 teams and limits it to western teams with records of .500 or better...it COULD survive...but I would leave it to the free market to decide.

mem skyline sig.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, UofMTigers said:

expanding the NIT would get rid of the need for their existence but I don't want them banned...like I said, if the Vegas tourney sticks to 8 teams and limits it to western teams with records of .500 or better...it COULD survive...but I would leave it to the free market to decide.

I'm fearful they could all survive and IMO it diminishes what post season should mean like too many bowl games do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, roughrider said:

I'm fearful they could all survive and IMO it diminishes what post season should mean like too many bowl games do.

I'm pretty sure that would kill off the CBI and CIT...as for Vegas...if I'm a West Coast team with 17-18 wins and my options are road games that even if I win them ends in an expensive cross country trek to NYC or taking an hour flight to Vegas where I get to play on a neutral floor...well, I could see Vegas surviving.

mem skyline sig.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sebasour said:

Is the Vegas 16 profitable? It doesn't even look like the players families showed up

 

image003.jpg

that's why they need to stick to West Coast teams...they should have known ETSU wouldn't brings anyone.

mem skyline sig.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, UofMTigers said:

that's why they need to stick to West Coast teams...they should have known ETSU wouldn't brings anyone.

I guess, but do Pepperdine fans travel well? The Pac 12, MWC, WCC, and WAC all play their league tournaments in Vegas, so I have to wonder how many fans are going to make the trip twice within a couple of weeks. I'm going to be honest, unless this tournament coincided with a trip to Vegas I already had planned I would not go if the Lobos were playing in it.

In a way, the Vegas 16 model of just bringing a bunch of teams to one place limiting travel and time kind of makes sense but getting excitement around a tournament that a Kentucky Sports Firm just pulled out of their asses is going to be hard. It's a similar issues many of the newly formed bowl games are facing, but even with those the football following from most FBS schools dwarfs the basketball following of many of the schools who would actually participate in it. 

 

For shits and giggles here's the western most 7 teams who participated in last years CBI and let's say they elected to go to the Vegas 16 instead. I'll also throw in Grand Canyon who went to the CIT. Here's your 8 team field

Nevada

Eastern Washington

Idaho

Montana

Houston Baptist

Seattle

Pepperdine

Grand Canyon

 

Now maybe Nevada pulls a few hundred, but outside of that I'm not sure a single game breaks 300 fans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ph90702 said:

No.  Also, I would cut the NCAA Tournament down to 64 teams, and I would cut the number of auto bids to 20.

so out of over 350 division I teams...only 64 should make the NCAAs

while over 60 of the 128 FBS teams go to bowls?

I'm gonna have to disagree with you.

I favor taking the NCAA tourney to 70 teams...add play-in games for the two other 16 seeds.

I mean, no 16 has ever beaten a 1...might as well give the 16s a shot at actually winning a game by having them play each other before being sacrificed to the 1 seed...then at least a few 16 seeds can go home with their heads held high after winning an NCAA tourney game.

16 seed vs 1 seed is a total mismatch and this at least would make it a little more fair for them.

mem skyline sig.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UofMTigers said:

so out of over 350 division I teams...only 64 should make the NCAAs

while over 60 of the 128 FBS teams go to bowls?

I'm gonna have to disagree with you.

I favor taking the NCAA tourney to 70 teams...add play-in games for the two other 16 seeds.

I mean, no 16 has ever beaten a 1...might as well give the 16s a shot at actually winning a game by having them play each other before being sacrificed to the 1 seed...then at least a few 16 seeds can go home with their heads held high after winning an NCAA tourney game.

16 seed vs 1 seed is a total mismatch and this at least would make it a little more fair for them.

If you want to do playoffs to playoffs, its 64/350 or 18% of basketball and 4/128 or 3% of FBS football..... we could also add FCS to the football mix to see how many DI schools in all go to the playoffs.

The bowls are irrelevant to the postseason in football as are the NIT, CBI, TGIF and TMNT in basketball.

In the end it just doesn't matter because my university will get whatever it wants and be on the inside on any incarnation of whatever conference it chooses and whatever incarnation of the NCAA or BCS that arises. Our ego only got bigger with the Pac-10, SEC and Big 10 trying to get us to join their conference.

Look, why don't you just be quiet before my university buys yours and closes it just for spite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, UofMTigers said:

so out of over 350 division I teams...only 64 should make the NCAAs

while over 60 of the 128 FBS teams go to bowls?

I'm gonna have to disagree with you.

I favor taking the NCAA tourney to 70 teams...add play-in games for the two other 16 seeds.

I mean, no 16 has ever beaten a 1...might as well give the 16s a shot at actually winning a game by having them play each other before being sacrificed to the 1 seed...then at least a few 16 seeds can go home with their heads held high after winning an NCAA tourney game.

16 seed vs 1 seed is a total mismatch and this at least would make it a little more fair for them.

There's one conference, for example, in which 12 of the 13 teams have a sub 300 RPI.  They don't deserve to be in over a bubble team like Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, etc.  Absolutely not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, ph90702 said:

There's one conference, for example, in which 12 of the 13 teams have a sub 300 RPI.  They don't deserve to be in over a bubble team like Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, etc.  Absolutely not.

Ga Tech is 16-12, and only 3-4 in their last 7 games...moreover, one of those Ws is over DII Tusculum.

yes they play in the ACC, but they don't even have a top 90 RPI...they are not an NCAA team IMHO.

adding 2 more NCAA  play in games for the 16 seeds would open up 2 more spots for at-large teams. (32 auto bids, 38 at-large bids)

mem skyline sig.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UofMTigers said:

Ga Tech is 16-12, and only 3-4 in their last 7 games...moreover, one of those Ws is over DII Tusculum.

yes they play in the ACC, but they don't even have a top 90 RPI...they are not an NCAA team IMHO.

adding 2 more NCAA  play in games for the 16 seeds would open up 2 more spots for at-large teams. (32 auto bids, 38 at-large bids)

But then you're adding more teams.  64 teams is plenty, especially considering that the last team has no shot of winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ph90702 said:

But then you're adding more teams.  64 teams is plenty, especially considering that the last team has no shot of winning.

back in the late 90s there were only 300 teams...now we have 351...I contend 70 NCAA spots and 64 NIT spots would be ideal for a NCAA division with 351 schools,. and 32 conferences.

as I said, you would have 32 auto bids, 38 at-large...with a 64 team NIT for the rest.

I like that set up...I mean, really, it's still a 64 team bracket...you just have a few play in games...the spirit of the 64 team field remains intact IMHO

mem skyline sig.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jack Bauer said:

I'm frankly surprised they haven't invited Memphis basketball to the NIT lately.

after beating Gonzaga I'm starting to think BYU may be an NCAA squad...win a couple games in Las Vegas and who knows...

mem skyline sig.jpeg

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...