I think anyone that makes the final 4 of the NIT is good enough to make the tournament.[/quote]
Except for the whole fact they didn’t make it.[/quote]
Yeah, this would mean Chapel Hill is in the tournament, they didn’t deserve to go and I don’t think you’ll find anyone who thinks they did deserve it.[/quote]
I’m thinking if Rhody and UD aren’t in it, this isn’t even a discussion.
It works.
1 Duke
16 Quinnipiac
9 Louisville
8 California
NIT Dayton
NIT Mississippi
NIT Rhode Island
NIT UNC
Winners play in Salt Lake City
It works.
1 Duke
16 Quinnipiac
9 Louisville
8 California
NIT Dayton
NIT Mississippi
NIT Rhode Island
NIT UNC
Winners play in Salt Lake City[/quote]
Uh, so what you’re saying is cut out 4 seeds from the NCAA tournament that would be ranked higher/lower than the NIT teams? Still doesn’t work. You’re losing a 4/5/13/12 from the NCAA tournament.
and the Ram on the left is still the heterosexual
It works.
1 Duke
16 Quinnipiac
9 Louisville
8 California
NIT Dayton
NIT Mississippi
NIT Rhode Island
NIT UNC
Winners play in Salt Lake City[/quote]
Uh, so what you’re saying is cut out 4 seeds from the NCAA tournament that would be ranked higher/lower than the NIT teams? Still doesn’t work. You’re losing a 4/5/13/12 from the NCAA tournament.[/quote]
I don’t follow.
If you eliminate the play-in game, too, you actually reduce the number at-large teams that make the NCAA tournament by about 16%.
The committee would seed 60 teams accordingly and leave a pod of 4 teams empty.
Teams that aren’t included in the smaller group of at-larges could still hope to make the NCAA field by beating teams in a tougher NIT.
I think anyone that makes the final 4 of the NIT is good enough to make the tournament.[/quote]
Except for the whole fact they didn’t make it.[/quote]
Yeah, this would mean Chapel Hill is in the tournament, they didn’t deserve to go and I don’t think you’ll find anyone who thinks they did deserve it.[/quote][font=times new roman]
[font=verdana]I think UNC is good enough to warrant being in the tournament, and they have earned it after making it to the final 4 of the NIT.
They did not deserve it after finishing 16-16, although they did have the #11 SOS and an RPI higher than ours.[/font][/font]
I love this idea, but fear the NCAA would take this as a chance to usher all the small conf auto bids and the non BCS at larges to the NIT and preserve the NCAA for the big guys and force all of the non-bcs teams to fight through each other to get into the NCAAs.
If you could force the NCAA to treat each tourny as it is now - just grant the NIT F4 entry at some level then this could be really sweet.
I think anyone that makes the final 4 of the NIT is good enough to make the tournament.[/quote]
Except for the whole fact they didn’t make it.[/quote]
Yeah, this would mean Chapel Hill is in the tournament, they didn’t deserve to go and I don’t think you’ll find anyone who thinks they did deserve it.[/quote][font=times new roman]
I think UNC is good enough to warrant being in the tournament, and they have earned it after making it to the final 4 of the NIT.
They did not deserve it after finishing 16-16, although they did have the #11 SOS and an RPI higher than ours.[/font][/quote]
Well I guess that just sucks that you take the culmination of the regular season and conference tourneys and that’s how you figure a team makes it into the dance.
I think anyone that makes the final 4 of the NIT is good enough to make the tournament.[/quote]
That goes along with my idea for NCAA Tournament ‘expansion’: Give four spots in a 64-team NCAA bracket to the NIT Final 4. Suddenly, an NIT berth has value and that tournament generates interest.[/quote]
Good idea except for timing. You’d have to push the NCAA back.
I’ve thought for a while they should do away with the play-in game between auto-bid qualifiers, and instead have play-in games for the last 4 at-large candidates between the last 8 teams vying for at-larges. Position them to make it into the number 12 or 13 slot. With the pod system, you can have all four of them playing on Tuesday to get in, then playing again on Friday / Sunday, if they win, against the 4 or 5 seed. There would still be discussion over the 9th etc. team to not get into the play-in, but you could at least include a number of the teams that didn’t get a shot but were close, and the interest it would draw would be higher than with the current play-in and wouldn’t penalize the auto-bid winners.
I don’t like the NIT play-in idea as much because they include home court advantages (and bias seeding to get good home crowds).
Even this is risking fiddling too much with a good thing, and it might be best to just go back to 64. No way is going to 96 a good idea. They screw up the brackets (it takes long enough to pick 64) and water down the tournament even more. And I agree they would probably force the non-bcs auto-bid winners to play their way into the field of 64, which reduces the chances of the big-time upset that is supposedly the appeal of this tournament. I hope they don’t screw this thing up in their zeal to make the bcs happy and make more money.
Fill out the normal NCAA bracket, except for the 8-9 matchups. Thus, 56 teams are slotted into the tournament. This includes conference champions but fewer at-large teams.
For the NIT, have 8 pods of 4 teams that play at the location of the top seeds. In each pod, play the bracket on the Tuesday-Wednesday following Selection Sunday to determine a ‘winner’ of each pod. Then, slot the ‘winners’ in the 8/9 games.
The final 8 of the NIT this year were very comparable to the 8/9 game participants (Wake, Cal, Texas, Louisville, etc.).
Then make all the 1/16 and 8/9 games on Friday/Sunday. Essentially, the ‘Final Four’ NIT teams will play the 1/16 winner. This is tough but at least they have an opportunity. It is conceivable that one team would have to play Tuesday/Wednesday/Friday/Sunday but I would think they would do that for an opportunity at the NCAA championship.
This would make the tournament essentially 98 teams by adding very few games. The NIT and ‘pod’ host schools could draw revenue off the four team pods and it would create a good atmosphere where an NCAA tournament appearance is still up for grabs.
Just a thought…
[quote=“smooth1435, post:31, topic:22855”]Fill out the normal NCAA bracket, except for the 8-9 matchups. Thus, 56 teams are slotted into the tournament. This includes conference champions but fewer at-large teams.
For the NIT, have 8 pods of 4 teams that play at the location of the top seeds. In each pod, play the bracket on the Tuesday-Wednesday following Selection Sunday to determine a ‘winner’ of each pod. Then, slot the ‘winners’ in the 8/9 games.
The final 8 of the NIT this year were very comparable to the 8/9 game participants (Wake, Cal, Texas, Louisville, etc.).
Then make all the 1/16 and 8/9 games on Friday/Sunday. Essentially, the ‘Final Four’ NIT teams will play the 1/16 winner. This is tough but at least they have an opportunity. It is conceivable that one team would have to play Tuesday/Wednesday/Friday/Sunday but I would think they would do that for an opportunity at the NCAA championship.
This would make the tournament essentially 98 teams by adding very few games. The NIT and ‘pod’ host schools could draw revenue off the four team pods and it would create a good atmosphere where an NCAA tournament appearance is still up for grabs.
Just a thought…[/quote]
That’s actually not a bad thought at all.
You reduce the number of teams picked to participate in the NCAA bracket to 56 and those teams wouldn’t have to participate as the dreaded #8 seed. I like it.
The big 6 conferences would never go for it but why not schedule some of the middle tiered teams in bracket buster games. That way the bubble teams from each conference would play other bubble teams. How does the whole choosing teams for the bracket buster work anyways?
Taking a certain amount of teams from the NIT would be a neat idea but I don’t think teams should have to wait a week or more to play a tournament game. This isn’t the NBA where they try to stretch the tournament out for 40 straight days.
my only reason for stating that is that 2 teams from a conference we all believe got somewhat of a shaft this season (partially due to our own doing) made it to the final 4 and potentially even the semi’s of the next big tourney. I never said they would pass the first round of the NCAA - but I also think it goes a little ways to justifying that we (as the a10 collectively) may have deserved more bids than we got. Thats all…
Dayton - Ole Miss coming to a close.
Good win for Dayton. Now go Rhody!
Wow, missed shots and missed Dunks. URI UNCCH is a sorry game. Go URI