Nebraska will not pursue further postseason play

[colhusker]

oh

 

It appears any place but Vegas.  Guess when you tell a team that they have to come play in your tournament it may not work.  Was there any TV coverage of this?

[49r]

Was there any TV coverage of this?

Yes. On CBS Sports Network, at least the last game of the day was on. I watched a few minutes of it. Ugly, ugly.

I'd be fairly surprised to see them continue this event after this year.  Too bad, too because at least in principle it was a good concept.

[Silverbacked1]

Maybe the lay off is the wrong thing to do.  That is too bad because I also think the idea is a very good one.

[AuroranHusker]

Changing the "Vegas 16" from 16 to 8 teams and then not having any Power Five programs probably doomed this event from the get-go.

[Norm Peterson]

 

Is there any pressure from the NCAA against these other tournaments?  Seems strange that no one is interested.  The money can't be that big of a deal.  

 

I think that it probably is, tho. Most ADs run in the red, not the black. And as far as I know, no conferences pick up the tab or subsidize it beyond the NCAA or NIT, so basically it's a school's independent decision. If you're a department losing money every year, I can't imagine the attraction of spending so much more for such little return.

 

It's looking more and more like the concern trolls during the NCAA purchase of the NIT were correct: the mid-standings power 5 schools were getting increasingly frozen out of postseason play. It's great for the midmajors, which is why it happened. But the price is that good programs who happen to be in loaded conferences are paying for that inclusion.

 

Simple economics of relative scarcity.

 

When there's only so much of a given thing and you reallocate who gets it, someone who had it before won't have it now.

 

The NCAA made a choice and the formerly have-nots are now the haves.  Someone's going to get left out.

[colhusker]

I hope those betting on crowd size took under

[49r]

So I did a little exercise a while back regarding NCAA D-1 membership and the relative number of postseason slots available in the "modern era" of College Basketball.

 

And while it is arbitrary and not really a bright line, many people argue that the postseason has been the most relevant since the NCAA expanded their tournament to 64 teams in '85.  So I'll use that as my reference point.  You'll see what I'm getting at shortly.

 

---

 

In 1985, when the tourney expanded to 64 teams, there were 282 schools in Division 1.  So, at that time, 22.7% of Div. 1 made it to the tourney.  The NIT had 32 teams, and that accounted for an additional 11.3%

 

If my research is correct, "power" leagues - conferences that received more than 2 bids (and yes I even included the Mo Valley here) placed about 47% of their members in the NCAA Tourney.  Today that number is 43%, and the Mo Valley no longer qualifies.

 

Now, there are 351 schools in Divison 1.  If we were to keep the same 1985 percentage of schools in the NCAA Tourney, we'd need to have 79.7 teams in (let's just round that up to 80).  To have the NIT stay the same, they would need to have 39.7 (or let's just say 40) teams.

 

Of course, they don't.  The two account for just 100 postseason bids instead of the 120 that they should given a constant % based on total membership, making it just *slightly* more difficult to gain entry into postseason.  Except for the CBI and CIT - and now the Vegas 16 (8) takes the total number up to 140.

 

Question is, do these three "lesser" tournaments make the postseason better?  Or worse?  Should we just expand the NCAA Tourney to 128 teams (or one more round) and eliminate the NIT, CBI, CIT and Vegas tourneys altogether?  What say you?

[49r]

Research comes from here:  http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/

[Silverbacked1]

I always thought it would be cool to get rid of the conference tournaments and go to pods of 4 and then seat all the D1 teams so that after one more week we could get down to the 64 that then are reseated to see who the big dog is.  

 

Kind of like a big state tournament.  Also the top what? like 88 teams would host the two games.  More money for everybody.

 

I think after that weekend we would have like 87.75 teams but it could be figured out.

[lang]

So I did a little exercise a while back regarding NCAA D-1 membership and the relative number of postseason slots available in the "modern era" of College Basketball.

 

And while it is arbitrary and not really a bright line, many people argue that the postseason has been the most relevant since the NCAA expanded their tournament to 64 teams in '85.  So I'll use that as my reference point.  You'll see what I'm getting at shortly.

 

---

 

In 1985, when the tourney expanded to 64 teams, there were 282 schools in Division 1.  So, at that time, 22.7% of Div. 1 made it to the tourney.  The NIT had 32 teams, and that accounted for an additional 11.3%

 

If my research is correct, "power" leagues - conferences that received more than 2 bids (and yes I even included the Mo Valley here) placed about 47% of their members in the NCAA Tourney.  Today that number is 43%, and the Mo Valley no longer qualifies.

 

Now, there are 351 schools in Divison 1.  If we were to keep the same 1985 percentage of schools in the NCAA Tourney, we'd need to have 79.7 teams in (let's just round that up to 80).  To have the NIT stay the same, they would need to have 39.7 (or let's just say 40) teams.

 

Of course, they don't.  The two account for just 100 postseason bids instead of the 120 that they should given a constant % based on total membership, making it just *slightly* more difficult to gain entry into postseason.  Except for the CBI and CIT - and now the Vegas 16 (8) takes the total number up to 140.

 

Question is, do these three "lesser" tournaments make the postseason better?  Or worse?  Should we just expand the NCAA Tourney to 128 teams (or one more round) and eliminate the NIT, CBI, CIT and Vegas tourneys altogether?  What say you?

I REALLY like your last paragraph.  I say it makes NCAA men's basketball worse overall...kind of disjointed and weird in the post season.  I say do away with the "other" 3 tournaments and I'd do something really radical like...give the top 32 teams a bye and then seed 128 other teams and play it down.  It would be really really cool and not to mention awesome.   It would give many programs a really cool opportunity to be a part of something big.  Some wouldn't like these programs from little conferences knocking off major conference teams in the first and second round.  I know most feel this would water down the tournament and the importance of the regular season, I totally disagree.  Maybe in that first round, you give home games to the higher seeds.   I so wish this could happen.  Another bi-product of this would be that ALL the teams and conferences would be followed throughout the season....much more so anyway.  Again it would make for a more cohesive NCAA mens Div 1 product.

[Norm Peterson]

My opinion:  32 teams was too few; 64 was just right; 68 was OK as long as it was a play-in game that allowed the committee to accept the "last 4 out" bubble teams into the tournament field; 68 with 11 seeds playing 11 seeds, etc., is a joke and a pox on the tournament and will never be the "first round of the NCAA tournament" in my view.

 

We should not expand the field any further than it is.  If anything, expand the NIT to 64 teams.  But quit messing with the NCAA Tourney.

[jimmykc]

If tonight's game is another laugher and the attendances and tv ratings continue to tank after the first week is over, I would predict some more messing by the NCAA. They have to be a bit concerned with the waning interest in college basketball by the general public after brackets are broken. Of course, there will always be a certain number of die hard followers of the sport like those of us, (sort of like those Trump supporters) but those who run things will try to jazz up the television ratings in any way necessary.

[Norm Peterson]

If tonight's game is another laugher and the attendances and tv ratings continue to tank after the first week is over, I would predict some more messing by the NCAA. They have to be a bit concerned with the waning interest in college basketball by the general public after brackets are broken. Of course, there will always be a certain number of die hard followers of the sport like those of us, (sort of like those Trump supporters) but those who run things will try to jazz up the television ratings in any way necessary.

Jimmy, are you suggesting that if we did the NCAA tourney the right way, it would be YUGE?  And very classy?

[Silverbacked1]

I have not done a bracket for about the last 5 or so years.  I now really enjoy the games.  Because I was so worried about who I needed to win so it won't bust my brackets that I couldn't enjoy them.

 

It would have even been worse if large sums of money where in play.  Even very small sums can make one crazy.

 

Kind of why I gave up all my fantasy teams.  

[49r]

I'm with you, Silver.  I stopped doing march madness brackets years ago and it's made the tournament orders of magnitude more enjoyable to watch!

[colhusker]

I have not done a bracket for about the last 5 or so years.  I now really enjoy the games.  Because I was so worried about who I needed to win so it won't bust my brackets that I couldn't enjoy them.

 

It would have even been worse if large sums of money where in play.  Even very small sums can make one crazy.

 

Kind of why I gave up all my fantasy teams.  

Guess I should just give up my fantasies!  Granted one is watching Husker basketball win an NCAA tournament game.

[lang]

My opinion:  32 teams was too few; 64 was just right; 68 was OK as long as it was a play-in game that allowed the committee to accept the "last 4 out" bubble teams into the tournament field; 68 with 11 seeds playing 11 seeds, etc., is a joke and a pox on the tournament and will never be the "first round of the NCAA tournament" in my view.

 

We should not expand the field any further than it is.  If anything, expand the NIT to 64 teams.  But quit messing with the NCAA Tourney.

I like that.   That would accomplish some of the things I mentioned.   It would be better than what we have now.

[Blindcheck]

The picture of all the empty seats could just as easily been taken at a first round venue for NCAA tourney....

Move first two rounds to campus sites....reward fans....

[Red Don]

The picture of all the empty seats could just as easily been taken at a first round venue for NCAA tourney....

Move first two rounds to campus sites....reward fans....

 

 

"Reward Fans"   me likey!