A Quick Question About the NI

L

littlesparky23

Well-Known Member
Since the NCAA controls the NIT, why not have the winner of the NIT play in the NCAA tournament?

Undoubtedly this question has been asked before, but it just seems so logical to me because of 4 reasons.


  • The higher seeds would actually have something to play for instead of feeling butthurt about missing the big dance.
  • It would no longer be the tournament that is looked down at as much.
  • More people would tune into the games to see who would make it.
  • This would be a whole lot better than the stupid play-in games they have now.
  • Imagine how much fun it would be if a team like VCU started in the NIT and went all the way to the Final Four
 
How would you make it work with the timing of both tournaments? But, if somehow it could be worked out and the winner could play in some play-in game it would be something. But, timing kills it because I don't know how you would make it work (or if you could make it work).
 
busabus114 said:
So the real tournament would wait 3 weeks to start until the NIT tourney was done?
Click to expand...

you literally play 4 games if you win the tourney.. that just happened in all the conference tournaments in the same amount of days

Obviously the NCAA just upping to 3 more play in games to the tourney or something would make far more sense
 
Is goofy as it sounds, one school actually won both the NIT and NCAA tournament in the same season. Any guesses as to the school?
 
g11 said:
you literally play 4 games if you win the tourney.. that just happened in all the conference tournaments in the same amount of days

Obviously the NCAA just upping to 3 more play in games to the tourney or something would make far more sense
Click to expand...

So all 32 teams in the NIT would all go to 1 location for a 4 day tournament?
 
littlesparky23 said:
Why not? I think waiting one more week wouldn't be that terrible.
Click to expand...

I dont think delaying the real tourney an entire week just so 1 more team can get in would make any sense. Any expansion would most likely be play in games as mentioned above but I think they should just go back to 64. The last few at larges are already barely deserved
 
Perhaps if the tournament could be finished within a week. Play 4 games in 7 days. Winner plays a play in game to become a 9th seed in the tournament (would play a play-in game against a pre-selected automatic qualifier for the 9th seed play-in game).

Something like that. Still will never happen. But, it would certainly make the NIT more important and exciting.
 
HaydenHawk56 said:
How would you make it work with the timing of both tournaments? But, if somehow it could be worked out and the winner could play in some play-in game it would be something. But, timing kills it because I don't know how you would make it work (or if you could make it work).
Click to expand...
I think the selection committee would have to still choose a field of 68 teams but leave one spot open. Then they would choose the teams to compete in the NIT for that final spot. The NIT would be played a week ahead of the Big Dance which would give it a better pump up to then the play-in games do.
 
HaydenHawk56 said:
Perhaps if the tournament could be finished within a week. Play 4 games in 7 days. Winner plays a play in game to become a 9th seed in the tournament (would play a play-in game against a pre-selected automatic qualifier for the 9th seed play-in game).

Something like that. Still will never happen. But, it would certainly make the NIT more important and exciting.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Probably will never happen, but I would love it.
 
littlesparky23 said:
I think the selection committee would have to still choose a field of 68 teams but leave one spot open. Then they would choose the teams to compete in the NIT for that final spot. The NIT would be played a week ahead of the Big Dance which would give it a better pump up to then the play-in games do.
Click to expand...

I would certainly be for it if they ever went that route. I'm all for making the NIT more exciting and increasing its importance.
 
busabus114 said:
I dont think delaying the real tourney an entire week just so 1 more team can get in would make any sense. Any expansion would most likely be play in games as mentioned above but I think they should just go back to 64. The last few at larges are already barely deserved
Click to expand...
I agree I think the tourney was the best with 64 teams. Not sure though if VCU would have made it though because I think they played in a play in game and that would've been terrible to miss had they not made the tournament.
 
Why not just scrap the NIT and expand the tourney to 100 teams? You know they'll probably do something like that eventually anyways.
 
busabus114 said:
I dont think delaying the real tourney an entire week just so 1 more team can get in would make any sense. Any expansion would most likely be play in games as mentioned above but I think they should just go back to 64. The last few at larges are already barely deserved
Click to expand...

Yeah, all the last 4 teams this year were garbage. The fact that our awful resume had a bit of a chance shows you that those last 4 teams really aren't needed.
 
Why on earth would the big boy conference tourney make all the real teams wait for the 'first losers' to beat each other up and get their participation ribbons?

It's fine the way it is. If they made everyone wait or opened the field to 96 teams or whatever, it would detract from the prestige (perceived or real) of making the NCAA tournament.
 
This is a question that only comes up when you're team is playing in the NIT. Fact is, if you're team isn't involved is this really an interesting discussion or is it just filled with hurt feelings and sadness?
 
Just have the "quarterfinals" of the NIT be the 4 play in games for the NCAA. So really it would only be 2 extra games for 4 teams.
 
CYUL8R said:
Why on earth would the big boy conference tourney make all the real teams wait for the 'first losers' to beat each other up and get their participation ribbons?

It's fine the way it is. If they made everyone wait or opened the field to 96 teams or whatever, it would detract from the prestige (perceived or real) of making the NCAA tournament.
Click to expand...

Suppose VCU should of given up a couple years ago then, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top