Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 5:49:11 GMT -5
The other post season brackets/schedules: NIT:CIT:
www.collegeinsider.com/tournament/schedule-results.phpAll Times EST NOTE: Top 4 seeds will get a bye after first round First Round MONDAY, MARCH 17 Quinnipiac (16-14) vs. NJIT (21-12) 7:00 pm TUESDAY, MARCH 18 Cornell (15-15) vs. Robert Morris (17-16) 7:00 pm Texas Southern (21-13) vs. New Orleans (19-13) 8:00 pm Jim Phelan Classic IUPUI (16-16) vs. Marshall (19-14) 7:00 pm WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19 Grambling (17-16) vs. UT Rio Grande Valley (19-16) 8:00 pm Presbyterian (18-15) vs. Seattle (18-14) Hugh Durham Classic Green Bay (17-16) vs. ETSU (24-9) 7:00 pm THURSDAY, MARCH 21 FAU (17-15) vs. Charleston Southern (17-15) Coach John McLendon Classic Saint Francis Brooklyn (17-15) vs. Hampton (16-17) 7:00 pm Riley Wallace Classic CSU Bakersfield (16-15) vs. Cal State Fullerton (16-17) 10:00 pm Lou Henson Classic Kent State (22-10) vs. UL Monroe (18-15) 8:00 pm FRIDAY, MARCH 22 Drake (24-9) vs. Southern Utah (16-16) SATURDAY, MARCH 23 FIU (19-13) vs. Texas State (24-9) 7:00 pm Second Round Quarterfinals March 27-31 Semifinals April 2 Championship April 4 CBI:
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner on Mar 18, 2019 13:19:36 GMT -5
Thought I'd create a thread for the secondary tournaments, and I've moved a couple posts here.
|
|
|
Post by motorcitysam on Mar 18, 2019 19:08:01 GMT -5
Thought I'd create a thread for the secondary tournaments, and I've moved a couple posts here. Thanks for creating the thread, and thanks for Scout for finding the brackets. DePaul is playing in the CBI. I'm glad they are; been a long time since DePaul was in any kind of postseason. WVU is in the CBI, also. Some decent teams are in the CIT, too. I'm always of the opinion that if there is an opportunity to play, you play. If nothing else, it extends the careers of your seniors. A good run probably gives your returning players some additional confidence going into the following year. At any rate, I don't think it hurts. CIT didn't waste any time getting started, did they?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2019 19:16:14 GMT -5
The NIT Tournament has some very intriguing matchups - it's is an underrated tournament for some quality, if not very good teams. I've cut and pasted below the 4 rule modifications they will be using:
•The 3-point line will be extended by approximately 1 foot, 8 inches to the same distance used by FIBA for international competition (22 feet, 1.75 inches).
• The free throw lane will be widened from 12 feet to 16 feet, consistent with the width used by the NBA.
• The shot clock will reset to 20 seconds after an offensive rebound instead of the full 30 seconds.
• Team fouls will reset at the 10-minute mark of each half for the purpose of determining free throws and one-and-one free throws will be eliminated. Teams will shoot two bonus free throws after the fifth team foul of each 10-minute segment. Additionally, teams will be awarded two bonus free throws after the second team foul committed under two minutes remaining in each half if that foul occurs before the fifth team foul of the segment. In each overtime period, team fouls will reset, and teams will shoot two free throws beginning with the fourth team foul or the second team foul committed under two minutes remaining if that comes before the fourth team foul of the overtime period
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner on Mar 18, 2019 21:35:56 GMT -5
Thought I'd create a thread for the secondary tournaments, and I've moved a couple posts here. Thanks for creating the thread, and thanks for Scout for finding the brackets. DePaul is playing in the CBI. I'm glad they are; been a long time since DePaul was in any kind of postseason. WVU is in the CBI, also. Some decent teams are in the CIT, too. I'm always of the opinion that if there is an opportunity to play, you play. If nothing else, it extends the careers of your seniors. A good run probably gives your returning players some additional confidence going into the following year. At any rate, I don't think it hurts. CIT didn't waste any time getting started, did they? The CBI's original goal was to compete with the NIT. For a couple years they kinda did--a couple teams did turn the NIT for the CBI. I recall vague rumors that the NCAA began putting some pressure on teams not to take CBI bids, though I don't know if that's true. Their first year, 2008, the field included Virginia, Cincinnati, Houston, Washington, and Utah, and a bunch of relatively high mid-majors including UTEP, Bradley, Richmond, and Tulsa, and MAC teams like Ohio. They were turned down by several, including Alabama, Wake Forest, Seton Hall, and Texas Tech, but still, it was a good, competitive field. This is the first year they've gotten any P6 teams to play since 2015.
|
|
|
Post by motorcitysam on Mar 19, 2019 20:41:45 GMT -5
Wow, Northridge is playing in the CBI with a record of 13-20??? Not a good look for the tournament.
|
|
|
Post by motorcitysam on Mar 20, 2019 15:36:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner on Mar 23, 2019 9:33:23 GMT -5
This post is for the 3 people in the world who give a rip about the CBI (those would be executives in the Gazelle Group) and the other 5 geeks in the world who just find this stuff interesting. As I noted earlier, the CBI originally planned to challenge the NIT for P6 teams, in hopes of becoming the #2 tournament. This table illustrates the decline of that ideal. The finalists are listed by champ/runnerup. Since it is a 16 team tournament, for the median I've listed the 8th/9th place ranks using RPI; for 2019, I list RPI first, then NET in determining the number of top 100 teams, bottom teams, mean, and median. For the bottom teams I drew the cut-off at 170, the top half when the tournament started (there were 341 teams in D1 then). Year | P6 Teams | Finalists | Top 100 | > 170 | Avg | Median | 2008 | 3 | Tulsa/Bradley | 8 | 0 | 106 | 99/115 | 2009 | 3 | Oregon St./UTEP | 8 | 0 | 109 | 99/103 | 2010 | 1 | VCU/St. Louis | 8 | 1 | 115 | 99/117 | 2011 | 1 | Oregon/Creighton | 4 | 1 | 119 | 116/121 | 2012 | 2 | Pitt/Wash. St. | 3 | 2 | 132 | 134/140 | 2013 | 2 | Santa Clara/Geo. Mason | 4 | 2 | 124 | 124/125 | 2014 | 3 | Siena/Fresno St. | 1 | 5 | 153 | 134/137 | 2015 | 1 | Loyola/La.-Monroe | 2 | 5 | 154 | 142/148 | 2016 | 0 | Nevada/Morehead St. | 3 | 5 | 159 | 143/147 | 2017 | 0 | Wyoming/Coast. Carolina | 1 | 9 | 169 | 170/171 | 2018 | 0 | N. Tex/San Francisco | 2 | 8 | 169 | 166/180 | 2019 | 2 | | 2/4 | 4/2 | 161/154 | 121/135; 133/142 |
The decline in the number of top conference schools participating is actually worse than it looks, because in the earlier years there were also more schools from the "upper" mid-majors. The 2008 field had 6 schools from CUSA--then a very good conference (more or less the AAC today), the A10, Mountain West, and the MVC (which still included Wichita and Creighton). By 2015, there were just 2 schools from upper mid-major conferences, Loyola (MVC) and Pepperdine (WCC). By 2018, the only school from an upper mid-major was San Francisco. This year, in addition to getting two P6 teams, the CBI got 2 upper mids--South Florida (American) and Loyola Marymount (WCC). They also got a couple of the better programs left in CUSA (which I think no longer quite counts as upper mid-major), in Southern Miss and UAB. If the P6 schools would begin to play again, this tournament could still improve rapidly. If, for example, Arizona, Oregon St, and BYU had agreed to play this year, replacing Longwood, Howard, and Cal-St. Northridge, the field would be quite credible. Plus, if that had happened, it might be that schools that turned down bids such as Bowling Green and San Francisco would have played, replacing Coastal Carolina and Cal-Baptist. At that point, the average NET rank would be 103. Every team would be in the top half in the country. In other words, there are a lot of good teams out there once the NCAA and NIT are done. Adding in the CBI, and you still, in theory, have fewer than the top one-third of teams in the country playing post-season. That's not so bad. The CBI (and the CIT) have gained a bad label in recent years as "pay-to-play" tournaments, and obviously, in a sense, they are. But that's also a bit unfair. They do (especially the CBI) try to get higher ranked teams, and if they could just shed the bottom 3-5 teams they've been taking for better teams that are turning them down, it would be a pretty select tournament. And schools with good home attendance (such as P6 schools) can and do end up making money by playing in the CBI. This year marks a return of P6 teams to the CBI after 3 years without, and a stronger field generally. Perhaps it can survive.
|
|
|
Post by motorcitysam on Mar 23, 2019 12:58:22 GMT -5
I must be one of those five geeks because that was an interesting read.
|
|
|
Post by kevinudm on Mar 24, 2019 9:26:16 GMT -5
Great analysis Commish, as always. I have no argument with your central point, that after the NCAA and NIT have made their selections there are still quality teams remaining to populate an additional tournament. If a 6-6 football team from the Sunbelt gets a bowl game, why shouldn't a 20-10 basketball team also have a post season opportunity?
My concern is that the NCAA basketball season is just too long. It used to be 27 games plus the possibility of NCAA or NIT. Now the regular season can be as long as 31 games (if you schedule a non-con multi-team tournament) plus a conference tournament plus a post season tournament. That's a big workload to put on student athletes. Last year Michigan played 41 games, and I doubt that's a record.
If a school's basketball season is extended for the NCAA or even the NIT, at least the games generate some attention and some money. And the bigger schools can mitigate the impact on the student athletes with academic support, chartered aircraft, etc. But when Presbyterian travels to Seattle for a meaningless CBI game, you have to wonder what's the point? Both schools are losing money, few fans will attend and there will be limited media coverage. Arguably both schools would have been better off ending their seasons earlier and letting their athletes focus on their classes.
100 teams participate in 98 games in the NCAA/NIT tournaments. 96 of those games feature better match-ups than any game that could be arranged for the leftover teams that the CBI has to choose from. ("Better match-up" being defined as the average RPI or NET of the two teams playing.) And even the two worst NCAA games, the 16-on-16 first round games, garner some interest as potential Cinderellas strive to win a Tourney game, earn an extra "Unit" for their conferences (about $1.7m) and get the chance to take on a 1-seed before a national audience. The TV audience for either first round game likely exceeds the aggregate audience for all CBI/CIT games.
So yes, the CBI could become incrementally better if more power conference schools were willing to participate. I still don't see the point. If the CBI and CIT ended after this season, few people would care or even notice.
Having said all of this, if UD eventually has a winning season and participates in ANY post-season tournament, I'll be paying attention....
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner on Mar 24, 2019 12:19:27 GMT -5
I don't disagree with anything you've said, Kevin. I've raised the question in past years, "what is the point of the CBI other than the obvious--to make money for the Gazelle Group?" But since the Gazelle Group is making money, I was just looking at the possible future of the tournament.
The CIT at least has a more clear purpose--to reward small college teams. The P6 conferences had 36 of 68 NCAA bids this year, and 13 of 32 NIT bids. That means the other 26 conferences got 51 slots in the two traditional tournaments, out of 278 teams (if I've added correctly). The 22 conferences from which the CIT selects (they exclude the P6 plus American, A10, Atlantic 10 and the Mountain West) have 227 teams and got 37 bids to the NCAA and NIT. I don't have a problem with that, but there I think one can definitely argue for a few more opportunities.
If I were king, I'd do this: 1. Abolish CBI 2. Keep NCAA as is, except I'd cut it back to 64 teams. Or, if it were desired to stay at 68, I'd do away with the last 4 at-large play-in, and just make all the 16th seeds play in (that would actually benefit small conferences, as it would assure them 2 more wins, and hence more units of revenue); 3. I'd do away with automatic bids for the NIT. Explanation below. 4. I'd keep the CIT, and expand it to a round 32 teams each year. The CIT in this scenario would almost become a I-AA championship (it another topic, but splitting hoops into D-1 and I-AA is not the worst idea in the world, with the NIT serving as a I-AA championship.)
On NIT auto-bids: Unlike most mid-major fans, I wouldn't be inalterably opposed to doing away with automatic bids to the NCAA entirely. The effect on good mid-majors would be less than many think. It's not high-major teams keeping Furman, Greensboro, Lipscomb and Toledo out of this year's field--it's bids going to North Carolina Central, North Dakota State, Prairie View, and Farleigh Dickinson that keep them out. That said, I wouldn't abolish the auto bids for two reasons: 1) they make championship week. I love championship week, and I love the intensity of watching these low and mid-majors in their tournaments knowing that 1 team, and 1 only, gets the prize; 2) the NCAA defines D-I. If it concludes that the MEAC, NEC, SWAC, SLC etc. meet the requirements for D-I, I agree that their champs should get a chance to compete for the national title.
But why give auto bids to the NIT? Those teams had their chance--they have their conference title. Their conference chose not to go by that, but to use a tournament, and they didn't win it. Why are they more deserving of an automatic "consolation" prize than other teams. It tends to make the first round of the NIT meaningless, and (because I'm strange and a traditionalist) I'd like to see the NIT stay meaningful. I'd put better teams in the NIT and let the consolation prize be the CIT--which was designed to be a tournament for exactly what they are--good low to mid-majors. Usually these teams get crushed in the first round of the NIT--although this year there was a notable exception when Norfolk State (a 260 net, about 30 spots lower than Detroit) upset Alabama. Basically, each year about 4 to 6 NIT games are lopsided blow outs due to this. Note, I would have the NIT place some selection premium on mid-majors that won solid conferences, such as Loyola this year.
Anyway, that would be my thing. But when it comes down to it, the main event is, as Jay Bilas says, pretty much fireproof. We talk about little changes, but the basic structure is near perfect.
|
|
|
Post by kevinudm on Mar 24, 2019 17:54:15 GMT -5
If I had my way I'd abolish the conference tournaments. A conference season of 14 to 20 games should hold more weight than a tournament of 3-4 games. But as it is, the conference season accomplishes nothing except to define the seeding for the conference tournament. The result is that mid-major conferences often send teams to the NCAA Tourney that are poorly equipped to represent their leagues.
Regarding the NIT autobids, I think that we've had this debate before. You believe that the AQs suck up bids that could go to more deserving mid majors. My concern is that if the NIT autobids were abolished, many of the newly available slots would go to mediocre teams from the power conferences. The PAC 12 might have been a major beneficiary this year, as Utah (17-14), Oregon St. (18-13), UCLA (17-16) and Arizona (17-15) all stayed home - which is where they belonged. But these schools and even sub-0.500 schools from other power conferences might benefit if the NIT autobids were abolished. Personally, I'm happy to see Harvard in the NIT rather than UCLA.
And the autobids did pretty well in the NIT this year. Harvard, Lipscomb and Norfolk St. all won in the first round, leaving the AQs with a 3-7 record. Even if the AQs were replaced by "more deserving" at large selections, these new replacements would still be playing higher rated opponents on the road. Maybe they would improve to 4-6, maybe not.
Across all sports the NCAA championships have a similar makeup, with about half of the slots reserved for conference champions and the balance going to the best available at-large teams. Basketball is unique in having an NCAA-run secondary post-season tournament. But there's a symmetry in reserving some of the slots for conference champs and the balance for at-large selections. It preserves the David versus Goliath element that makes the NCAA Tournament so entertaining. I'd prefer to see the regular season conference champs in the NCAA Tournament, but at least now they have somewhere to go.
And the CBI and CIT are just silly; nobody watches, nobody cares, and most of the participating schools lose money. I'd lose them both. Or if one remained, it should be renamed the NEITTNITT (the Not Even Invited to the Not-Invited-Tournament Tournament).
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner on Mar 24, 2019 21:04:27 GMT -5
Lipscomb absolutely would have been an NIT at-large selection--no autobid needed. A chance Harvard would have been, too. Norfolk state's win was nice, but it doesn't offset a bunch of crap games this year and every other as teams with low 200 rankings get bids.
Here are the highest ranked teams in NET with winning records not to get NCAA or NIT bids: 72 East Tennessee State 74 San Francisco 80 Fresno State 85 BYU 87 Oregon State 90 Utah Valley 91 Southern Mississippi 93 Arizona 94 Tulsa 96 Grand Canyon
If you dumped auto bids St. Francis (265), Norfolk (260), Cambell (223), and Sam Houston (174), I'm pretty sure you'd be taking other mid-majors in their places. I would like tot see the NIT use some creativity, though. For example, I'd still take auto-bid recipient Loyola (128) over some of the higher ranked teams, as the regular season champion of a pretty good conference and a Final Four team a year ago. I might take Campbell,, simply becaue they have the nation's leading scorer. I'd take South Dakota State (104), an outright regular season champ with a great player in Mike Daum,
But we're not talking here about passing over a Furman or a Belmont or a Toledo, like when you look at the NCAA bubble. Those teams will get in. Here, we'd be talking about squeezing out some teams that really are not very good--teams that the 11-21 Titans would probably beat 6 times out of 10. Yeah, at that point, I'd rather see Arizona and Oregon State than St. Francis and Norfolk State.
|
|
|
Post by motorcitysam on Mar 26, 2019 18:47:03 GMT -5
Two potentially good NIT games are on ESPN tonight: Indiana vs Wichita State (happening now) followed by TCU vs Creighton. IU and Texas Christian are both number one seeds.
|
|
|
Post by kevinudm on Mar 26, 2019 20:21:45 GMT -5
Commish, the NIT explicitly allows teams with losing records as at-large selections. So if you got rid of the autobids in 2019, make room for these teams with high NET rankings:
77 - Missouri (15-17) 79 - Oklahoma St. (12-20) 81 - South Carolina (16-16) 84 - Texas A&M (14-18) 88 - Southern Cal (16-17) 89 - Northwestern (13-19)
So let's play this out for 2019. 10 autobids disappear. Lipscomb is still in but not Harvard (RPI of 129). So the next nine in are East Tenn St., San Francisco, Missouri, Oklahoma St., Fresno St., South Carolina, Texas A&M, BYU and Oregon St. The first two out are Southern Cal and Northwestern. Ugh. Nine conference-winning mid-majors are gone, and five of the replacements are mediocre power conference squads. Four deserving mid-majors also make the cut, but this comes at a high price.
Of course the NET rankings aren't determinative and we don't who the NIT selection committee would really choose to replace the autobids. But I can't help thinking that the current structure of the NIT - 32 teams, +/- 10 autobids, and the balance being the best available teams regardless of record - is designed to avoid regularly dipping into the ranks of power conference teams with losing records, without the need for an arbitrary exclusion of teams with .500 or worse records.
Perhaps you could amend your proposal, so that you get rid of NIT autobids AND require a winning record for at-large selections. I still wouldn't be in favor. But without that change, you might not like the results of your own proposal.
|
|