|
Post by ptctitan on Oct 27, 2023 13:23:35 GMT -5
Here are the new changes beginning at the end of this season. Remember that the NCAA owns and operates the NIT. This is clearly in response to the proposed Vegas tournament to be sponsored by Fox Sports.
|
|
|
Post by motorcitysam on Oct 27, 2023 13:41:24 GMT -5
So, the auto bids are going to be a reward for finishing in the middle of the pack in a high major conference. Way to reward excellence. (Sarcasm.)
The NCAA does not care about mid majors. We might be on the way to a return to the existence of the "small college" division of the NCAA.
|
|
|
Post by fan on Oct 28, 2023 9:46:24 GMT -5
Sam, no doubt, where will they draw the mid-major line, at the Dayton's or St Mary's of the world? Certainly not the Fairfields or UDM's of the world. From time to time there is a thread about the UDM dropping down to D2 or D3...the NCAA might do it for them.
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner on Oct 28, 2023 19:31:36 GMT -5
I'm opposed to this latest NCAA move, but it won't have as much effect on mid-majors as some people think, because most of the new "automatic qualifiers" get bids anyway. For example, last year the 12 automatic qualifiers would have been Texas Tech, Ohio State, Oklahoma St, Rutgers, Vanderbilt, Florida, Villanova, Seton Hall, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Oregon, and Colorado. All but Texas Tech and Ohio State got NIT bids anyway. Presumably, those two would have replaced Alcorn (18-14, #244 NET) and Morehead State (#228, 22-12 but just 18-12 against D1.) Honestly, I don't have a big issue if teams with NETs higher than 200 don't play in the NIT.
The loss of automatic bids might also have jeopardized Eastern Washington (NET 128), Youngstown State (NET 123), & Cal-Irvine (96). BUT, they may well have been replaced by more mid-majors: the highest ranked teams (p6 or mid-major) not to get an NIT invite were Dayton (#78, but announced in advance would not accept), Utah (#79), Marshall (#83), and BYU (#85). The next highest P6 teams w/ no invite after BYU were Wake Forest (#90), Nebraska (92), Stanford (97), and St. John's (98). Other mid-major schools in the top 100 with no bid were UNLV (91), James Madison (94), St. Louis (99).
The impact on mid-majors might have been greater in 2022, when Kansas State (#69), Penn State (88) and Maryland (90) would have gotten auto bids, at the expense (presumably) of Alcorn (262), Nichols State (192), Cleveland State (179). However, Long Beach State (159) almost certainly would not have received an at-large bid. Other mid-major automatic qualifiers that year at risk of not getting at-large bids would've been Princeton (107), Northern Iowa (98), Iona (89), and Toledo (86). The top competitors for those bids would have been W. Va (16-17, #73), Fresno (22-13, 77), Clemson (17-16, 81), Furman (82), Syr. (16-17, 83), Drake (85), & Wichita (15-13, 87). So altogether, including the loss of auto-bids might have seen as many as 5 or 6 fewer mid-majors.
The real problem, I think, is simply the already existing tendency of the NIT selection committee to choose mediocre high-majors over mid-majors that have had really good seasons. It seems to me that the question is, given that tendency, is giving automatic bids to mid-major regular season champs (which either would have received bids anyway, or are as likely to take the place of more deserving mid-majors as they are of mediocre P6 teams) a second-best solution for mid-majors? Maybe.
People like us would usually prefer to see a good mid-major that won 23 games play than an 8th place team in a P6 conference with a sub-.500 record, but unfortunately a majority of fans prefer to see the latter.
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner on Oct 28, 2023 20:45:45 GMT -5
I went back to take in the 2019 NIT (the 2020 NIT was cancelled and the 2021 played with just 16 teams and no auto bids due to Covid).
P6 Schools that did not get at-large bids but would have gotten auto-bids under the new rule were Penn State (14-18, NET 50) and Oregon State (18-13, #87), but Oregon State was on probation anyway and not eligible. Would the NCAA have then taken the next lowest PAC 12 team, USC (16-17, #88)? Let's assume the worst, that's still just 2 teams bumped into the field.
Who would have been out? Presumably NEC champ St. Francis (Pa) (16-15, #265) and MEAC Champ Norfolk State (19-14, #260). Again, I'm OK with teams in the bottom third of the NCAA not getting bids.
However, several others would have clearly been in jeopardy or obviously out, including Campbell (Big South, 17-13, #223), Sam Houston State (Southland, 18-12, #174), Wright State (19-14, #140), Harvard (18-12, #129), Loyola (19-14, #128), and South Dakota State (#104).
The replacement candidates in order of NET: East Tennessee State (22-10, #72) San Francisco (#74) Missouri (15-17, #77) Oklahoma State (12-20, #79) (I'm pretty sure that with a 12-20 record and already under investigation, the Cowboys would not have been invited) Fresno State (22-9, #80) South Carolina (15-16, #81) Texas A&M (14-18, #84) BYU (19-13, #85) Northwestern (13-19, #89) Utah Valley (23-10, #90) Southern Mississippi (#91) Miami (14-18, #92) Arizona (17-15, #93) Tulsa (18-14, #94) UConn (16-17, #95) Grand Canyon (19-14, #96) SMU (15-17, #98) South Florida (23-14, #99)
Looking at those ranks and W-L records, and given that every P6 conference would already have at least 2 teams in the NIT, I feel pretty confident that any other mid-majors that lost their auto-bid would have been replaced by other mid-majors. So overall, I think the 2019 NIT would probably have seen a decrease of 1 or possibly 2 mid-majors, with some other mid-majors replaced by more deserving mid-majors.
|
|