with the NCAA tourney expansion - is the NIT over?

A

AlwaysbeaHawk

Banned
that's the only way this would make any sense to me...eliminating the NIT altogether...but it still sucks letting mediocre .500 teams into the "big dance"....

and I don't think it nescessarily makes the regular season mean less...because, just like in football, one of a team's 1st goals is still
winning their conference....
 
I believe the NCAA owns the NIT anyway; as of a few years ago. I would guess that yes, absolutely, last night was the last NIT game. ever.
 
AlwaysbeaHawk said:
that's the only way this would make any sense to me...eliminating the NIT altogether...but it still sucks letting mediocre .500 teams into the "big dance"....

and I don't think it nescessarily makes the regular season mean less...because, just like in football, one of a team's 1st goals is still
winning their conference....
Click to expand...

I don't believe .500 overall-record teams will be in the Big Dance with an expansion to 96. As a point of reference, remember Alford's last season when I believe we were 17-14 overall 9-7 (I think) in conference and we didn't even make the NIT.

Yeah, the article in the paper today said the NIT would go bye-bye and good riddance IMO. Course those other two scrub tournaments would still exist the CBI and I forget the other one.
 
Automatic bids for conference and regular season champs. So more small conference teams not <.500 major conference teams.
 
Cant understand why they would water down and mess with one of the most highly watched and followed sporting events in the country.
 
Because of MONEY!!! THATS ALL IT IS!! I mean it will be more basketball to watch in March which you cannot go wrong with that. Listening to KXNO there will be like 50 at large bids.
 
Actually, as a way to not have to run two different tournaments, it makes a little sense. Not as a way to improve the tournament, however.
 
CAARHawk said:
Automatic bids for conference and regular season champs. So more small conference teams not <.500 major conference teams.
Click to expand...
I agree with this (automatic berths for regular season and tourney champs). One question, if a team wins the regular season championship and is in the NCAA tourney already, why do they need to play in the conference tournament? I mean, they will play, and maybe they play to get a better seed (like they do today), but there will be even less to play for teams like UNI. In the long run, adding teams is for money and not for a better tourney overall.
 
Use the beginning of the tournament to do "play in" games for the teams they consider marginal.
Every year we have teams that likely deserved in but didn't make it.
 
So when in March would this new format tournament start? a week earlier or would it start the same time and just go a week longer into April?
 
Strange as it may seem, going to 96 only adds one round of games. The top 32 get byes, the other 64 play one game and it's down to the present 64. Supposedly, the new first round would be on Tuesday and Wednesday and they we're off and running with the traditional Thursday/Friday schedule. Think of it as 32 play-in games instead of one.
 
The watered-down argument has been raised virtually every time the tourney has been expanded. One more round won't detract from the regular season any more than the entire NIT tourney does. It's a case of people being resistant to change simply because it threatens that which they are comfortable with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top