Play Fantasy Use your Fantasy skills to win Cash Prizes. Join or start a league today. Play Now
Blog Entry

The NIT is interesting, relatively speaking

Posted on: March 23, 2009 10:48 am
Edited on: March 23, 2009 10:49 am
 

Assuming you're not basketballed out -- and why would you be? -- there are a couple of nice NIT games Monday night.

First, at 7:30 p.m. ET, Kentucky visits Creighton, and though it's just an NIT game, it's still nice to see Creighton get a program like Kentucky in its building. Then, at 11:30 p.m. ET, Davidson visits Saint Mary's, which means we get Stephen Curry vs. Patrick Mills in a match-up of guards as good as (if not better than) anything the NCAA tournament will offer this week (except for a possible Ty Lawson-Jonny Flynn match-up in the Elite Eight in Memphis).

So Kentucky vs. Creighton and Davidson vs. Saint Mary's on Monday night.

Perhaps the NIT isn't so bad after all.

Comments

Since: Apr 5, 2008
Posted on: November 14, 2009 2:20 am
 

The NIT is interesting, relatively speaking

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. In an expanded format 13-16 seeds would become the 21-24 seeds (out of 96 teams). A more reasonable argument would be "when a 11 or 12 seed finally beats a 1 seed talk to me about expanding the tournament."

This reply is a long time coming, but I just checked this old post.  By this logic, rather than expanding the tournament you'd be made happier by eliminating the automatic bids to tournament winners. 

I know that's a horrible idea, because it will absolutely kill the weak conferences, but it makes just as much sense as expanding the tournament to include bubble teams that would love to say they made it to the NCAAs, but quite simply didn't earn it.

Just be happy basketball isn't ruined by the BCS






Since: Oct 24, 2008
Posted on: March 24, 2009 11:16 pm
 

The NIT is interesting, relatively speaking

I can't remember which broadcaster said it, but "when a 16 seed finally beats a 1 seed, then talk to me about expanding the tournament."

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. In an expanded format 13-16 seeds would become the 21-24 seeds (out of 96 teams). A more reasonable argument would be "when a 11 or 12 seed finally beats a 1 seed talk to me about expanding the tournament." That being said, just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it will not happen. I could make the argument that a bubble team left out of the NCAA tournament could have won if seeded as an eleven or twelve, but we will never know because they weren't given a chance. Of course the primary objective of the NCAA tournament is determine a national champion, however, when the success of a program and the staff is based on the NCAA tournament it should provide more opportunities for post-season success.




Since: Apr 5, 2008
Posted on: March 24, 2009 9:27 pm
 

The NIT is interesting, relatively speaking

Expand the field to 96 giving first round byes to the top 8 seeds (32 teams) This expands the field to 65 at large bids and will still be the top teams in the country. According to Kenpom.com there are 344 Division one teams and is only 27.9% (96/344) of the universe.

What's the problem with this format?

 

I can't remember which broadcaster said it, but "when a 16 seed finally beats a 1 seed, then talk to me about expanding the tournament."

 




Since: Mar 3, 2009
Posted on: March 24, 2009 9:49 am
 

The NIT is interesting, relatively speaking

Bobby Knight is a proponenet of adding another game - - make the field 128 teams - -why not?  Or as they do in tennis tournaments, have a qualifying round - - take the next 64 teams and have them play a game and then play the bottom 32 teams from the main draw.  Then start the tournament with the winners of the play-in games.  That way we get eh best bottom 32 teams, not just the 32 teams some old geezers from the BCS think are the best 32-64 teams.

 




Since: Mar 3, 2009
Posted on: March 24, 2009 9:43 am
 

The NIT is interesting, relatively speaking

Just a quick comment on the potential guard matchups - - what about Tyreke Evans vs A.J. Price if Memphis and UConn both make the Elite Eight - - with the side show being Antonio Andersen guarding Price on defense.  Can't wait to see if Evans/Andersen are able to shut Price down.  I think it will be their biggest challenge of the season.  Also, can Connecticutt take away the dribble/drive from Evans.  Without it, Memphis's offense sputters - - unless of course Mack or Sallie can pull another rabitt out of their you-know0whats.

Can't wait.

 

 




Since: Oct 24, 2008
Posted on: March 23, 2009 10:31 pm
 

The NIT is interesting, relatively speaking

Yes, I realize how many bad teams there are out there, but for every bad team is a good team. That's kinda how it works. I'm not advocating for mediocre teams like Iowa and above average teams like NC State. I'm just saying that teams like George Mason can make a final four run and Davidson last year was one possession away from knocking off Kansas to get to the final four, it should be worth considering for expanding to include more of the "best" teams. Remember that out of the 31 automatic bids only about 10-12 of those teams would earn outright bids without winning their conference. The result is basically 40-45 of the best teams with the remaining being a couple in the 50-75 range, the majority in the 75-150 range, and a few 150+ teams. Bottom line is the field was expanded to 64 for a reason nearly 25 years ago and since more D-I teams exist today the field should be expanded to adjust for the increase in number of teams on an approximately proportional basis. That may be less than 96 or more, I'm not really sure, but I know it should be more than 65.

 




Since: Mar 23, 2009
Posted on: March 23, 2009 6:56 pm
 

The NIT is interesting, relatively speaking

 

 The tourney is fine the way it is.

 

If bubble teams played better than they did, they would clearly have not been bubble teams. If you know there's just 31 at-large bids, and there's always going to be at least 2-3 teams that surprise in conference tournaments (Think Cleveland State, USC, Temple). Arizona probably shouldn't have made the tournament, but here they are in the sweet 16.

I went to Radford, so I'm a bit biased, but ask any other of the small conference schools if they dislike the fact that they have a chance to make it.

Adding more teams would create more boring match-ups as one poster stated, the Iowa v. NC State type thing. I think people would much rather watch teams like East Tennesee State flirt with beating Pittsburgh than a game of Iowa's/NC State's caliber.

Simply put- if Saint Mary's was going to make it, they needed to play better- same goes for Creighton. Davidson is nothing but Curry. They aren't the team they were last year.

Leave it be, and let the debate be about the College Football playoff system. That's the most broken system in sports.




Since: Mar 22, 2008
Posted on: March 23, 2009 5:46 pm
 

The NIT is interesting, relatively speaking

I really like that idea pittbaster

 




Since: Jan 15, 2007
Posted on: March 23, 2009 4:51 pm
 

The NIT is interesting, relatively speaking

 

Instead of expanding from 65 to 96, why not just go from 65 to 68.

 

 

I agree, but I would do it a little differently.  Make the four play-in games between the last 8 at-large teams into the field, and they play into the 12 slots.  With that structure, the play-in games are actually what they say they are.  You think you deserve in over this other team?  Beat them.  Then also the worst conference champion isn't rewarded by a chance to lose to a crappy team or beat a crappy team and lose to an outstanding one.




Since: Nov 14, 2007
Posted on: March 23, 2009 4:14 pm
 

The NIT is interesting, relatively speaking

Instead of expanding from 65 to 96, why not just go from 65 to 68.

Each 1-seed gets a team from a Play-in game, 3 more at-large spots open up (Creighton, Saint Mary's and one more for people to argue about)

This would create some tougher 15-2 matchups by sliding some 14 seeds into a 15 spot and obviously make the 3 vs. 14 games a lot more competitive. It would make fighting for a 1-seed all the more important.

And also, the benefit of have 68 instead of 96 is NOT having to watch 28 mediocre teams play basketball on the first weekend. Sure the really small schools might get screwed by having 4 play-in games, but does anyone really tune in to watch Alabama State.

 



The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com