CBI field versus CIT

[19SHOCKER76]

Has this idea been tossed out there?

Why not have the "other" post season tourney's act as a "play-in" for THE dance?

[AndShock]

Has this idea been tossed out there?

Why not have the "other" post season tourney's act as a "play-in" for THE dance?

Because they would take too long.

[lemuel777]

Anyone notice that since the CBI and and now the CIT that the number of at large bids into the NCAA tournament as dwindled down to four? Is there any correlation here? Hmmm?

[AndShock]

Anyone notice that since the CBI and and now the CIT that the number of at large bids into the NCAA tournament as dwindled down to four? Is there any correlation here? Hmmm?

There are way more than 4 at-large bids to the NCAA Tournament, there is still 34, just like there has been the past couple of years. Either I'm misunderstanding your statement, or you misunderstood the analysts. Bracketologists (is that a word?) were referring to the fact that there were 4 at-large spots that were still up for grabs to the bubble teams, as of this past Saturday. As in the other 30 at-large bids were already taken by at-large "locks," meaning those at-large teams, weren't bubble teams.

But to answer your question, the NCAA Tournament bids have no direct correlation to the CIT or the CBI.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

I think they were speaking on behalf of only 4 mid-major at large bids.

[AndShock]

I think they were speaking on behalf of only 4 mid-major at large bids.

Ohhh, I see. I still don't think that has anything to do with the CBI or CIT though.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

Lemuel was asking if the number of mid major bids is dwindling because of tourneys such as the CBI and CIT.

Which you can make a case for or against.

[AndShock]

Lemuel was asking if the number of mid major bids is dwindling because of tourneys such as the CBI and CIT.

Which you can make a case for or against.

I don't see why adding more post season tournaments would lower the number of at large bids for mid-majors. The teams in the CBI or CIT aren't even teams that were left out of the NCAA Tourney, they were teams left out of the NIT. I'm not sure what the NCAA would have to gain by sending teams to the CBI or CIT.

[Aargh]

A school has to guarantee $60K to get a home CBI game. If WSU sells 10K tickets that's around $200K in ticket sales.

Maybe WSU's bid was a little higher, to "encourage" an invitation. It still looks like WSU can clear around $100K per home game.

I doubt that money is shared with the conference, like money from the NCAA's. The CBI almost looks like a reward for fans who support their teams even in lean years. A lot of schools don't bid for a CBI game because they can't anticipate the fan support to make it economically feasible.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

Like I said you can make cases for and against it.

I honestly dont care either way.

But what the heck.

To counter your statement I would say.

I'm not sure what the NCAA would have to gain by sending teams to the CBI or CIT.

Well then they wont have to deal with us lower common folk.
Dont extend invites to the big dance but as a consoloation you can play in this hurr tournament.

[RoyalShock]

It is an interesting thought and something to add to the popular conspiracy theory, I suppose.

My position, which will remain so until proven otherwise, is that there is no conspiracy to keep "mids" out of the dance. If I bought into that line of thinking my interest in college basketball and WSU's participation in it would suffer a major hit. Part of the draw of sports for fans is the chance to win it all. If the one opportunity to do that is corrupt, then much of the enjoyment of fanaticism would be gone.

Every year it seems like the exclusion of one or more teams fuels so much controversy and conspiracy theory. But I've yet to see one team excluded without reasonable justification. The disagreement is always on the particular criteria that either did them in or got another team in. So the natural reaction is to dismiss the criteria as a way for the selection committee to cover their butts.

I understand the mindset, I just don't buy it myself.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

likewise.

I would prefer us to change up some of these buy games with "better" teams, from a conference comparable to ours.

However mids need to take advantages of things when they can. Honestly if WSU would not have choked in Turg's last year they would have been looking at a very very high seed. 3 at the highest 5 at the lowest.

Next year We actually have a very good schedule. We play the BCS teams. (LSU, TTU). We play TCU (the MWC stock is up) Also we have the CBE, which is guaranteed a BCS opponent.

Stakes/Hype/Expectations are very high for this team next year.

Even for the league. Within the next 2 years the valley can/could/should be in the very same place it was just a few short years ago.

[RoyalShock]

A school has to guarantee $60K to get a home CBI game. If WSU sells 10K tickets that's around $200K in ticket sales.

Maybe WSU's bid was a little higher, to "encourage" an invitation. It still looks like WSU can clear around $100K per home game.

I doubt that money is shared with the conference, like money from the NCAA's. The CBI almost looks like a reward for fans who support their teams even in lean years. A lot of schools don't bid for a CBI game because they can't anticipate the fan support to make it economically feasible.

I wonder if the $60k is only for the first round or for all rounds up to the championship?

14 games (three rounds) x $60k is $840k. I suspect the championship rounds are paid for out of those funds as well as the costs for officials in all the games. As a rough guess they would still have $500k+ left to cover admin costs.

Is it also possible that they get a cut of the proceeds above $60k?

Do they help cover travel costs for the visiting teams?

That just seems like a pretty large haul for something of this relatively low magnitude for there not to be some degree of payout to the participants.

[SubGod22]

Every year it seems like the exclusion of one or more teams fuels so much controversy and conspiracy theory. But I've yet to see one team excluded without reasonable justification. The disagreement is always on the particular criteria that either did them in or got another team in. So the natural reaction is to dismiss the criteria as a way for the selection committee to cover their butts.

I don't remember all the details surrounding it, but a handful of years ago a Top 25 Utah State team was left out of the NCAAs. Maybe there's more info that I don't remember but I can recall a lot of outrage from many of the BcS honks on that one as well.

[lemuel777]

Here is a link that I saw and indirectly commented on. Sorry about the slip of the non-BCS. Thanks ASM for clarifying.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/03/16/sports/BKC-NCAA-Tournament-Committee.php

"Since non-power conference schools received 12 at-large bids in 2004, the number has dropped four of the past five years to this year's total of four, the lowest this decade."