|
Post by Commissioner on Mar 26, 2019 22:12:07 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. The NIT already prohibits losing records, by NCAA rule. So they won't be in. So no, no MIssouri, no Oklahoma State, no Texas A&M, no USC, no Northwestern. So your analysis is based on a faulty premise. What would you get? Take out the autobids, and Lipscomb and Hofstra still clearly make the field. Not a penny of doubt. Then its gets closer. Here's who would be in and out just on NET ranking: In (Record; NET | Out (Record: NET | East Tennessee State (24-10; 72 | St. Francis (Pa) (18-14; 265 | San Francisco (21-10; 74) | Norfolk St. (21-13; 260 | Fresno State (23-9; 80) | Campbell (20-12; 223) | South Carolina (16-16; 81) | Sam Houston State (21-11; 174) | BYU (19-13; 85) | Wright State (21-13; 140) | Oregon State (18-13; 87 | Harvard (18-11; 129) | Utah Valley (24-9; 90 | Loyola (20-13; 128) | Southern Mississippi (20-12; 91) | South Dakota State (24-8; 104 |
I don't know how one could conclude that that is a not a better field, and that good, deserving mid-majors are represented--they take 6 of the 8 freed up spots. But the committee doesn't go strictly by NET--for example, it took San Diego over Tulsa and Grand Canyon, which were ahead of USD in NET. I actually doubt that it would have taken South Carolina over any of the mid majors in that group of 6, or over South Dakota State. And as for your fears of big conference bias, note that it also took San Diego ahead of Arizona, Oregon State, and South Carolina --P6 teams with better NETs. I would certainly leave room for the Committee to take, say Loyola (I would) as the regular season champ of a very solid conference and a final four team last year. I think South Dakota State gets an at-large bid given its outright conference title, it's record, it's NET, and the fact that it has one of the best players in the country and the 6th All-Time scorer in NCAA history in Mike Daum. I'd even consider Campbell, because they have the nation's leading scorer. But if they just went NET--that would work, too, and mid-majors would do fine. I think you are way too pessimistic about big conference also rans snatching up all the bids. Right now good mid-majors don't miss the tournament because of mediocre high-majors. Good mid-majors miss the tournament to see their bids go to much lesser mid-majors. I generally would prefer to see in something like the NCAA a team such as Belmont (which got a bid), over a very comparable (in computer rank) team like, say, TCU or Clemson. But I'm not that interested in watching teams that are clearly inferior. Let's at least make the NIT a worthy consolation prize for the teams that miss out on the NCAA, by taking teams that are among the best out there--not teams that are pretty clearly in the bottom half of the country.
|
|
|
Post by kevinudm on Mar 27, 2019 13:13:43 GMT -5
According to Wikipedia:
In the past, NIT teams were selected in consultation with ESPN, the television home of the NIT. The goal of the NIT was to sustain the MIBA financially. Therefore, schools selected to play in the NIT were often major conference teams with records near .500 that had large television fan bases and would likely have a respectable attendance for tournament games on their home court....In an effort to maintain some quality, a rule saying that a team must have a .500 or better record to qualify for the NIT was imposed.
The NCAA announced a revamped selection process starting with the 2017 tournament. The main highlights are: --Teams are no longer required to have .500 or greater records to receive bids. --Similar to the automatic bids the NCAA Tournament grants for all conference tournament champions, all teams that won regular-season conference championships but failed to earn NCAA tournament bids are guaranteed places in the NIT. ************ I realize that Wikipedia is not the definitive reference and no citation is listed. But I have no reason to doubt it, and found no better reference to the topic.
I concede your point (and admire your research) that the NIT at large selections include mid-majors with worse NET rankings than schools from major conferences which were passed over. So perhaps there is less "big school bias" than I fear. But I disagree that the Committee would give extra consideration ("bonus points") to mid-majors with conference titles, leading scorers, etc. The NCAA Selection Committee may not get every selection right, but they work hard to base their decisions exclusively on performance on the court. Now that the NCAA has taken over the NIT they apply the same principles and award at-large bids to the best available eligible teams, without regard to any extraneous considerations.
I agree that removing autobids would elevate the level of competition. And even your analysis shows that at least some of the mid-majors bounced from the tournament would be replaced by major conference schools (Oregon St. and South Carolina in your example, and probably more if sub .500 teams are eligible).
Beyond that, our disagreement is based on preference rather than fact. My sympathies lie with the mid-majors and low-majors, and I believe that any regular season conference champ should get a tourney invite (and not just a pay-to-play tournament). If this dilutes the overall caliber of the NIT Tournament, that problem is sorted out after one round. You've still got four more rounds to go.
|
|
|
Post by motorcitysam on Mar 28, 2019 19:13:10 GMT -5
I've been enjoying following the NIT, CBI, and CIT this year, in part because some of "my" teams (DePaul, Georgetown, Providence) were involved. I can understand why some people say there are too many tournaments, but I guess they could treat the CBI and CIT the way I do those obscure college football bowl games; I just don't watch them. If I was as big a college football fan as I am a college basketball fan, I'd probably watch some of those bowls, too.
After many years of sub-500 basketball, DePaul finished the conference tournament with a 15-15 record. They're in the CBI and have made it to the final series, after hosting three games at there small on-campus arena. They're 18-15 now, guaranteed to finish the season with a winning record, and if they manage to win the CBI, they'll have 20 wins. All of those things are positives for a program that has been as down as DePaul, so I won't knock it. If the Titans are in that position next season, I'll see that as a sign of progress.
|
|
|
Post by motorcitysam on Apr 2, 2019 17:59:02 GMT -5
As the long mean season of "no basketball" approaches, I'm glad to have a good night of basketball on TV. The NIT semis are on ESPN, beginning at 7:00 PM with Wichita State vs Lipscomb followed by a Longhorn State battle between Texas and TCU. Both games should be entertaining. CBS Sports Network has the CIT semis, unfortunately at the same times, 7 and 9. Those games are Hampton vs Marshall and Texas Southern vs our buddies Green Bay. I'm glad one HL team is still playing, and I am glad that Texas Southern is having a good season (24 wins so far) after we poached their coach at the last minute. They made a smart hire with Johnny Jones.
|
|
|
Post by motorcitysam on Apr 4, 2019 16:59:49 GMT -5
It's Two Titles Thursday in college basketball tonight, as both the CIT and NIT title games take place. Green Bay is on the road at Marshall for the CIT crown. GB is favored by 5.5 points. In the Big Apple, Texas takes on Lipscomb for the NIT championship. The Longhorns are a 1.5 point favorite. The NIT game is televised on ESPN, starting at 7:00 PM.
|
|
|
Post by motorcitysam on Apr 6, 2019 14:54:30 GMT -5
Congrats to Texas (NIT), USF (CBI), and Marshall (CIT) for closing out the season with wins.
|
|