Third Postseason Tournament for Men's Hoops on Way

[TexasTerror]

A third March college basketball tournament? About 1/3rd of the teams in college basketball will now go to the postseason with this coming to fruition...any one hear any more on this?

Third March college basketball tourney on the way
16 teams to get shot to say 'We're No. 98'
Associated Press

NEW YORK — There's going to be more March basketball.

The producer of some early-season tournaments announced Wednesday it will start a 16-team postseason event that will augment the NCAA and NIT.

The College Basketball Invitational will be staged this March by The Gazelle Group, based in Princeton, N.J., runs the 2K Sports College Hoop Classic that benefits Coaches vs. Cancer and the O'Reilly Auto Parts CBE Classic.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/5301712.html

[UNHWildCats]

lets have a tournament for teams who win less then 10 games :p

[tribe_pride]

lets have a tournament for teams who win less then 10 games :p

Crap. Even if we get your 4th tourney UNH, W&M will yet again be shut out of post-season play.xbawlingx

[UNHWildCats]

UNH too prolly, but im hopeful this year, they only lost by 10 to Boston College

[UMass922]

Like bowl games for 6-5 teams, this kind of thing is only a problem if you try to make it out to be more than it is. If it's a chance for the kids to play some more games, great. I have no problem with it. No one who plays in the NIT or in the Weed-Eater Bowl thinks that it means they're world-beaters.

[brownbear]

Hopefully this will be used as an opportunity for 2nd place teams from smaller conferences to make the postseason and not for 9th and 10th place teams from the big conferences like the NIT is. That's what makes the NIT lame. Put teams that want to play games in the tournament, and it will be better.

[griz37]

Hopefully this will be used as an opportunity for 2nd place teams from smaller conferences to make the postseason and not for 9th and 10th place teams from the big conferences like the NIT is. That's what makes the NIT lame. Put teams that want to play games in the tournament, and it will be better.

At least the NIT now guarantees of a bid if you win your regular season league title.

[brownbear]

At least the NIT now guarantees of a bid if you win your regular season league title.

It doesn't help the Ivy League at all since we don't have a conference tourney.

[TheValleyRaider]

lets have a tournament for teams who win less then 10 games :p

The Futile Four! xnodx xlolx xrotatehx

[UMass922]

Hopefully this will be used as an opportunity for 2nd place teams from smaller conferences to make the postseason and not for 9th and 10th place teams from the big conferences like the NIT is. That's what makes the NIT lame. Put teams that want to play games in the tournament, and it will be better.

Agreed. Very good point. Perhaps any team that finishes second in its conference and doesn't receive a berth in the NCAAs or NIT should get an automatic bid to this tournament.

[EKU05]

Hopefully this will be used as an opportunity for 2nd place teams from smaller conferences to make the postseason and not for 9th and 10th place teams from the big conferences like the NIT is. That's what makes the NIT lame. Put teams that want to play games in the tournament, and it will be better.


For what it's worth, the NIT now offers an auto bid to any conference regular season champion that didn't end up in the NCAA. That's a rule that can only benefit mid major schools/leagues right there.

[brownbear]

For what it's worth, the NIT now offers an auto bid to any conference regular season champion that didn't end up in the NCAA. That's a rule that can only benefit mid major schools/leagues right there.

That usually only applies to about 3 or 4 schools. The rest of the 32-team field comes from bad teams from powerful conferences. If you have a losing record, you shouldn't be able to make a postseason tournament of any kind.

[EKU05]

Okay, let's deal in facts here rather than throwing out baseless generalizations....

Last year's NIT field included

-14 teams from "BCS" (I realize the term doesn't technically apply to basketball) conferences.

-18 teams from other leagues.

Also, here are the final records of those 14 "BCS" teams...

Mississippi State (21-14)
Providence (18-13)
Michigan (22-13)
Florida State (22-13)
West Viginia (26-9)
Alabama (20-12)
NC State (20-16)
Oklahoma State (21-13)
Georgia (18-14)
Depaul (19-14)
Kansas State (23-12)
Clemson (25-11)
Ole Miss (21-13)
Syracuse (24-11)

So where exactly did the notion that teams with "losing records" are getting into the NIT come from? Not only are there no losing records, but most of the teams won 20 games or more playing in some of the toughest conferences in the nation.

I used the final Sagarin ratings page to quickly pull these records from, and noticed as I was doing it that the worst of these 14 listed teams was #75 Providence...and that was an extreme outlier. Now, I certainly don't put all of my eggs in Jeff Sagarin's basket, but that's a pretty good indication that most of these teams where fairly deserving of a bid to the second national tournament.

Also, here's some more food for thought...

-Despite their obvious numbers advantage only 1 team from a non-BCS league (Air Force) advanced to the round of eight (aka won more than a single game).

-In fact, only 5 of the 18 non-BCS teams won in the first round at all.

Those stats don't indicate that the non-BCS representation should have been higher either, but I'll be the first to admit that they could be slightly skewed by the fact that most of those teams never get to host a game. So if you want to complain about the fairness of the NIT, I'd be more inclined to do it about where the games are played than about what teams are invited.

[brownbear]

Okay, let's deal in facts here rather than throwing out baseless generalizations....

Last year's NIT field included

-14 teams from "BCS" (I realize the term doesn't technically apply to basketball) conferences.

-18 teams from other leagues.

Also, here are the final records of those 14 "BCS" teams...

Mississippi State (21-14)
Providence (18-13)
Michigan (22-13)
Florida State (22-13)
West Viginia (26-9)
Alabama (20-12)
NC State (20-16)
Oklahoma State (21-13)
Georgia (18-14)
Depaul (19-14)
Kansas State (23-12)
Clemson (25-11)
Ole Miss (21-13)
Syracuse (24-11)

So where exactly did the notion that teams with "losing records" are getting into the NIT. Not only are there no losing records, but most of the teams won 20 games or more playing in some of the toughest conferences in the nation.

I used the final Sagarin ratings page to quickly pull these records from, and noticed as I was doing it that the worst of these 14 listed teams was #75 Providence...and that was an extreme outlier. Now, I certainly don't put all of my eggs in Jeff Sagarin's basket, but that's a pretty good indication that most of these teams where fairly deserving of a bid to the second national tournament.

Also, here's some more food for though...

-Despite their obvious numbers advantage only 1 team from a non-BCS league (Air Force) advanced to the round of eight (aka won more than a single game).

-In fact, only 5 of the 18 non-BCS teams won in the first round at all.

Those stats don't indicate that the non-BCS representation should have been higher either, but I'll be the first to admit that they could be slightly skewed by the fact that most of those teams never get to host a game. So if you want to complain about the fairness of the NIT, I'd be more inclinded to do it about where the games are played as opposed to who is invited.

It's not that the NIT has teams with losing records, but if you picked the next 14 teams from the six power conferences, then you will definitely get teams with losing records. Also, your tally does not take into account conferences like the Missouri Valley, CAA, and A10, which aren't "BCS" conferences, but still get multiple teams in the NCAA Tourney every year.

Last year, total bids in two tourneys by conference:

ACC - 9 out of 12 (7 NCAA, 2 NIT)
Big XII - 6 out of 12 (4 NCAA, 2 NIT)
Big East - 10 out of 16 (6 NCAA, 4 NIT)
Big Ten - 7 out of 11 (6 NCAA, 1 NIT)
Pac-10 - 6 out of 10 (6 NCAA)
SEC - 9 out of 12 (5 NCAA, 4 NIT)

BCS Conferences - 47 out of 73 made one of postseason events (64%)

CAA - 4 out of 12 (2 NCAA, 2 NIT)
A10 - 3 out of 14 (2 NCAA, 1 NIT)
Missouri Valley - 4 out of 10 (2 NCAA, 2 NIT)
Mountain West - 4 out of 9 (2 NCAA, 2 NIT)
WAC - 4 out of 9 (2 NCAA, 2 NIT)

19 out of 54 made one tourney (35%)

Conferences with 2 Teams in Postseason

Horizon - 2 NCAA
America East - 1 NCAA, 1 NIT*
Atlantic Sun - 1 NCAA, 1 NIT*
MAC - 1 NCAA, 1 NIT*
MAAC - 1 NCAA, 1 NIT*
MEAC - 1 NCAA, 1 NIT*
Ohio Valley - 1 NCAA, 1 NIT*
SoCon - 1 NCAA, 1 NIT
Sun Belt - 1 NCAA, 1 NIT*
SWAC - 1 NCAA, 1 NIT*

*Qualified based on regular-season championship

Conferences with one bid (All NCAA) - remaining 10

Big Sky
Big South
Ivy
Northeast
Patriot
Southland
Big West
Summit League
West Coast
Conference USA

[EKU05]

Do you expect every conference to get equal numbers of bids? That shouldn't happen unless the conferences themselves are equal...and we all know that isn't the case. When it comes to at-large bids the only thing that should matter is picking the best teams. If that means six from one conference and 1 from another, then so be it. If every conference got close to the same number of bids I would honestly have to start questioning the integrity of the process. These are not randomly divided divisions like the AFC East or the NFC South...these are conferences with widely varying levels of play, and the bids should reflect that.

Though it isn't a hard and fast rule, I would say that more often than not a team from the Big East or the SEC that wins 20 games is likely better than a team from the OVC or the Summit leage that won 24. Again, this is not true all the time, but frequently it is.

Certainly you'll always be able to dispute individual picks. That's going to happen when you have 340 teams fighting over 97 post-season berths, but I don't think there's anything outrageous about the NIT field I looked at.

[brownbear]

Do you expect every conference to get equal numbers of bids? That shouldn't happen unless the conferences themselves are equal...and we all know that isn't the case. When it comes to at-large bids the only thing that should matter is picking the best teams. If that means six from one conference and 1 from another, then so be it. If every conference got close to the same number of bids I would honestly have to start questioning the integrity of the process. These are not randomly divided divisions like the AFC East or the NFC South...these are conferences with widely varying levels of play, and the bids should reflect that.

Though it isn't a hard and fast rule, I would say that more often than not a team from the Big East or the SEC that wins 20 games is likely better than a team from the OVC or the Summit leage that won 24. Again, this is not true all the time, but frequently it is.

Certainly you'll always be able to dispute individual picks. That's going to happen when you have 340 teams fighting over 97 post-season berths, but I don't think there's anything outrageous about the NIT field I looked at.

What I'm suggesting is that 10 conferences only had one team make the postseason last year, so can't they get a second team in the postseason? With a third postseason tournament, these conferences should get a second team in before the Big East gets an 11th team in the postseason. First off, for the NCAA tournament, there should be no teams in with losing conference records.

[appfan2008]

I dont think we need a third tournament... the schedule is just so busy as it is

[brownbear]

I dont think we need a third tournament... the schedule is just so busy as it is

Whose schedule? CBS and ESPN may have full schedules, but over 200 teams are pretty free that time of year.

[EKU05]

I have mixed feelings about it. I like the idea of a few more spots in the post season, and I've always liked the NIT because it had some serious history behind it even if it isn't anything close to what it used to be. I guess I'd rather just see the NIT expand the field by 16 (or even 32 if they want) than I would see another tournament come in.

Does anyone know how the selection process would work? Would this new tournament literally be fighting the NIT for teams?

-----

As far as 10 leagues only getting one team in...I'll go back to my original point. I think those conferences deserve their second place team in when their second play team gets that good. I know some people have a hard time buying it, but with some of the weaker leagues the 10th place team in the Big East may well be better than their entire conference. So basically you'd be penalizing a team for playing in a good conference.

Quite honestly, most of us should be thankful that we get our one autobid and our back-up spot for the regular season champ in the NIT. Based on the raw numbers many conferences (including the one I root for) don't even really deserve that.

I just don't like the idea of saying to a team..."We feel like you are the next best team, but this other team posted a slightly better conference record against teams you would have destroyed." I'm not saying that would be the case every time, and I certainly wouldn't complain if non power conferences were to get more automatic bids (as an OVC fan), but it wouldn't exactly be fair that way either.

[brownbear]

I have mixed feelings about it. I like the idea of a few more spots in the post season, and I've always liked the NIT because it had some serious history behind it even if it isn't anything close to what it used to be. I guess I'd rather just see the NIT expand the field by 16 (or even 32 if they want) than I would see another tournament come in.

Does anyone know how the selection process would work? Would this new tournament literally be fighting the NIT for teams?

That may be the way to do it. Bring the NIT up to 48 or maybe even 64 teams.

Also, I think the NCAA tournament should get rid of the play-in game. This only makes it so an extra at-large team makes the tournament while a legitimate conference champion loses the play-in game and never really makes the tournament.

[EKU05]

That may be the way to do it. Bring the NIT up to 48 or maybe even 64 teams.

Also, I think the NCAA tournament should get rid of the play-in game. This only makes it so an extra at-large team makes the tournament while a legitimate conference champion loses the play-in game and never really makes the tournament.


I don't like the "play-in-game" either, but I kind of disagree about who should be in it if it does exist.

I think that people in general view things too much in terms of conference when it comes to the national scene. The ONLY thing that should be considered in terms of how teams are seeded is how good the teams are. Realistically, the worst two teams in the field are usually conference champions that only made the field because of their automatic bid. If you did away with conferences altogether and just let the teams play it out then it would be laughable that those two teams were even being considered for the tournament, much less being exempted from the PiG.

Given that, how do you justify putting them behind clearly superior teams just because those teams played in a tougher conference?

Besides that, consider this...

That game is for the "last spot" in the field...which obviously is a 16 seed. If you put two at large teams that based on how good they are would have been 9 and 11 seeds in that game...then how do you explain to the team that earned the one seed in that region that they must now face a much better team that any other one seed...or the two and three seeds for that matter.

I hate the play in game, but if it is going to happen then it simply has to be between whatever the committee decides are the worst two teams in the field. Otherwise the system breaks down. I know the feeling as a mid major team fan...you dread the idea of not even being a part of what most people consider to be the real tournament field...

But ultimately the answer if you want don't want to have to play your way in is to just play better basketball during the season and make sure you aren't one of the teams considered for the PiG.

[GeauxLions94]

The Futile Four! xnodx xlolx xrotatehx


The Sun Belt Invitational :p

[UMass922]

That game is for the "last spot" in the field...which obviously is a 16 seed. If you put two at large teams that based on how good they are would have been 9 and 11 seeds in that game...then how do you explain to the team that earned the one seed in that region that they must now face a much better team that any other one seed...or the two and three seeds for that matter.

Simple. You just feed the play-in game into a 6/11 game instead of a 1/16 game (since the 11 line is usually where the last at-large team in ends up).

In any event, I'm not a fan of the play-in game as it is now. What I would do is actually expand the field to 68 and put a play-in game in each region to decide who plays the 1 seeds. That opens up the field for four more bubble teams (which would most likely be major-conference teams or powerful mid-major teams). It would also take some of the stigma out of being a play-in team: as it stands now, it's awkward having that one little game there, but if you have four games, you can make an event out of it that will have some juice and give those small-conference winners a chance to play in competitive games before a national audience instead of blowouts. Have a double-header on Tuesday night to feed into the Thursday 1/16 games and another one on Wednesday night to feed into the Friday games. Or make a one-day, all-day event out of it with a quadruple-header on Tuesday.