What do you think of this?

[rmilia1]

Waa debating on another thread about the NIT and i stated that the problem with the NIT is that, much like the regular season, it's pretty meaningless to most teams. Most leagues are always one bid leagues so the conference title is meaningless as only the conference tourney champ will advance. The NIT is meaningless as it's really just a consolation "prize " that no one cares about since it occurs at the same time as the NCAA so I was thinking of a way to correct both problems. Came up with this.

Get rid of conference tourneys for all leagues except for P12, SEC, B12, B10, ACC, BE, A10, MWC, WCC, MVC, AAC ( these are really the only leagues who get multiple bid a few times a decade or more ). Replace conference tourneys in the other leagues with the NIT which would run the week before the selection show. NIT teams are league champs and select at larges. Seed and pod the 32 teams so you create 8 4 team tournaments. The 8 champs receive auto bids to the NCAA with the rest going back into the at large pool. For example this year's 32 NIT teams would have been

VERMONT
FGCU
MONTANA
UNCA
CAL DAVIS
COFC
NORTGEASTERN
MID TENNESSEE
ODU
WKU
NO KENTUCKY
PENN
HARVARD
RIDER
CANISIUS
BUFFALO
TOLEDO
BETH COOKMAN
HAMPTON
SAVANNAH ST
WAGNER
MURRAY ST
BELMONT
BUCKNELL
UNCG
ETSU
NICHOLLS ST
SE LOUISIANA
GRAMBLING
SDSU
ULL
NMSU

This prioritizes regular season conference titles , makes the NIT important again, gets the best teams in the NCAA from the low majors and opens up 14 at large bids.

Thoughts??

 

[Wild Turkey]

Shit ain’t broke.

 

[rmilia1]

Shit ain’t broke.

Sure but that doesn't mean you can't improve it either

 

[ericd7633]

This is an awful idea IMO. The tournament doesn't need 14 more at large bids created. It takes away the whole allure of the tournament. The buzz simply won't be the same, if say, a team like this year's Stanford beats a team like Wichita State as opposed to Marshall.

 

[Hitman Hart]

Rewarding teams that can't win their conference tournament is a bad idea. In basketball, you have to win a tournament to become a champion. This is true on the high school level, the collegiate level and the professional level. The criticism that conference tournaments get will always be weird.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Shit ain’t broke.

 

[rmilia1]

This is an awful idea IMO. The tournament doesn't need 14 more at large bids created. It takes away the whole allure of the tournament. The buzz simply won't be the same, if say, a team like this year's Stanford beats a team like Wichita State as opposed to Marshall.

It doesn't prohibit smaller schools from being at large teams

 

[Ickey Shuffle]

All of these teams would've beaten Oklahoma tho. So there's that.

 

[rmilia1]

Rewarding teams that can't win their conference tournament is a bad idea. In basketball, you have to win a tournament to become a champion. This is true on the high school level, the collegiate level and the professional level. The criticism that conference tournaments get will always be weird.

They'd still be winning a tournament to get in though. Only they'd be playing better teams thus guaranteeing better teams in the big tourney. There's no pro to a 14-17 win low major making the tourney imo and the reason CBB gets a bad rap is largely because the regular season is,seem as meaningless which it mostly is

 

[Hitman Hart]

They'd still be winning a tournament to get in though. Only they'd be playing better teams thus guaranteeing better teams in the big tourney. There's no pro to a 14-17 win low major making the tourney imo and the reason CBB gets a bad rap is largely because the regular season is,seem as meaningless which it mostly is

and this wouldn't be a solution to that. No one cares about low-major basketball.

seriously, we just had an absolutely chaotic first two rounds in the NCAAT, and people are out here criticizing how shitty low-majors keep getting in because of conference tournaments. lol wut?

Also, under your proposal, the UVa/UMBC upset would not taken place.

@Wild Turkey is right. Don't fix it unless it is broke. This would not be an improvement.

 

[rmilia1]

and this wouldn't be a solution to that. No one cares about low-major basketball.

seriously, we just had an absolutely chaotic first two rounds in the NCAAT, and people are out here criticizing how shitty low-majors keep getting in because of conference tournaments. lol wut?

Also, under your proposal, the UVa/UMBC upset would not taken place.

@Wild Turkey is right. Don't fix it unless it is broke. This would not be an improvement.

The tourney isn't broken, that I agree with. I'm simply stating a proposal that doesn't change the tourney but improves the regular season and makes the NIT important again. If all you care about is the tourney then sure leaving it as is is ok even if it's not the best possible teams

 

[Hitman Hart]

The tourney isn't broken, that I agree with. I'm simply stating a proposal that doesn't change the tourney but improves the regular season and makes the NIT important again. If all you care about is the tourney then sure leaving it as is is ok even if it's not the best possible teams

The only way to fix the regular season is if you restrict the NCAA tournament to conference regular season and conference tournament winners. You can argue that the NBA doing away with the one and done rule could fix things as well.

Your proposal really doesn't do anything other than change the path of getting to the NCAA tournament for mid and low majors.

also tbf, I don't think anyone cares that the NIT is relatively meaningless. It is a tournament that features teams that weren't good enough to make the field of 68. It isn't 1950, anymore. The NIT is only useful for young teams that would like to see its players gain experience. Extra home games don't hurt, either.

 

[Deep Creek]

and this wouldn't be a solution to that. No one cares about low-major basketball.

seriously, we just had an absolutely chaotic first two rounds in the NCAAT, and people are out here criticizing how shitty low-majors keep getting in because of conference tournaments. lol wut?

Also, under your proposal, the UVa/UMBC upset would not taken place.

@Wild Turkey is right. Don't fix it unless it is broke. This would not be an improvement.

Spent the last two days driving the desolate roads of West Texas listening to talk radio. Would like your take on this.

Discussion was that we shouldn't subject teams that have proven their metal in the regular season to possible first round upsets in the post season tournament at the same rate as their conference brethren that squeak by in the regular season. Was mostly centered around a 31-2 Virginia team that won the ACC by four games! Yet, they are not given a break for that and their fellow conference members like 8th place FSU and 10th place Syracuse didn't produce in the regular season to "earn" a break in the tournament.

In fact, some callers were of the opinion that NCAA should follow the CFP model and have the committee select the final four based on the regular season performance period.

 

[rmilia1]

The only way to fix the regular season is if you restrict the NCAA tournament to conference regular season and conference tournament winners. You can argue that the NBA doing away with the one and done rule could fix things as well.

Your proposal really doesn't do anything other than change the path of getting to the NCAA tournament for mid and low majors.

also tbf, I don't think anyone cares that the NIT is relatively meaningless. It is a tournament that features teams that weren't good enough to make the field of 68. It isn't 1950, anymore. The NIT is only useful for young teams that would like to see its players gain experience. Extra home games don't hurt, either.

The NIT people might lol. Other than that yours right. I just like the idea of the best 32 mid and low majors slugging it out for the auto bid while also getting better trams in general in the tourney but overall it's not too relevant as 95% of those teams can't make a FF anyway

 

[Hitman Hart]

Spent the last two days driving the desolate roads of West Texas listening to talk radio. Would like your take on this.

Discussion was that we shouldn't subject teams that have proven their metal in the regular season to possible first round upsets in the post season tournament at the same rate as their conference brethren that squeak by in the regular season. Was mostly centered around a 31-2 Virginia team that won the ACC by four games! Yet, they are not given a break for that and their fellow conference members like 8th place FSU and 10th place Syracuse didn't produce in the regular season to "earn" a break in the tournament.

In fact, some callers were of the opinion that NCAA should follow the CFP model and have the committee select the final four based on the regular season performance period.

Sounds like these are just insane and classic reactionary takes. tbh. Virginia didn't get upset by UMBC because they had to play on Saturday night. FSU and Syracuse didn't make it to the Sweet 16, because they got eliminated from the ACCT early. The NCAAT is designed to be chaotic. This is a basketball tournament in which teams get eliminated if they lose only once.

Also, the callers who called for the Final Four to be selected by a committee are insane. This is such a terrible idea, I don't know where to start. They should have probably started with slimming down the Field of 68 to 48 or 32, before they went with that nonsense.

The NCAAT is not the issue with CBB, atm. The only problem I have with it, is that they need to go back to 64 teams. 68 teams makes for a pretty weak bubble. I do understand that they went to 68 teams due to TV $$$.

If you think the CBB regular season is in desperate need of fixing, then they should go back to how things were from 1975-1980, in which the top two teams from each conference were the only teams to get in. There are a number of reasons why this will never happen, 1.) because of money, 2.) because conferences are so big now, that making the NCAAT will become borderline impossible for some (even decent) programs.

 

[Hitman Hart]

Also, when did the takes about the "CBB regular season is worthless" begin? I legitimately don't remember anyone saying that when Skip Prosser was still @ Wake from 2001-2007. Don't really remember it when Dino was the coach from 2007-'10, either.

I kinda zoomed out of CBB for a few years during the Bzdelik era from 2010-'14. Started becoming a diehard fan again once Manning was hired. That is around the same time I started hearing that opinion.

 

[PEOPLESCHICKEN]

They have the NIT in the early part of the season then another post season. Its just glorified consolation game

 

[Deep Creek]

If you think the CBB regular season is in desperate need of fixing, then they should go back to how things were from 1975-1980, in which the top two teams from each conference were the only teams to get in. There are a number of reasons why this will never happen, 1.) because of money, 2.) because conferences are so big now, that making the NCAAT will become borderline impossible for some (even decent) programs.

The whole time I was listening to the conversation on the radio, this is what I was thinking. March Madness is the NCAA's Honey Pot...they'll guard it closely. Truth be told, as long as the money rolls in, they could give a shit about whether a regular season is meaningless or not.

 

[Deep Creek]

Also, when did the takes about the "CBB regular season is worthless" begin? I legitimately don't remember anyone saying that when Skip Prosser was still @ Wake from 2001-2007. Don't really remember it when Dino was the coach from 2007-'10, either.

I kinda zoomed out of CBB for a few years during the Bzdelik era from 2010-'14. Started becoming a diehard fan again once Manning was hired. That is around the same time I started hearing that opinion.

I don't think the "CBB regular season is worthless" blather came from college basketball. I think it started when the BCS (and subsequent CFP) started and the tradtional bowl alliances were modified.

The traditionalists of college football did/do not want the playoff field expanded because it "diminishes the value of the regular season where every game counts". It just shifted over to hoops and gained some momentum when there started to be 6, 7, 8, 9 team bids from one league. This could be JMO from what I remember.

 

[Hitman Hart]

I don't think the "CBB regular season is worthless" blather came from college basketball. I think it started when the BCS (and subsequent CFP) started and the tradtional bowl alliances were modified.

The traditionalists of college football did/do not want the playoff field expanded because it "diminishes the value of the regular season where every game counts". It just shifted over to hoops and gained some momentum when there started to be 6, 7, 8, 9 team bids from one league. This could be JMO from what I remember.

I'm guessing sometime after the one-and-done rule was implemented, then. CBB regular season is meaningless in the same way the regular seasons in the NBA, NHL, NFL (more arguable, but you can legit lose 7 games in the NFL and still make the playoffs) and MLB are meaningless. They aren't meaningless, but it makes for a good narrative from anti-CFP expansion crowd.