(02-26-2017 08:33 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  Wish they would do just what the women's side does with a 64 NIT team.

+1

The NCAA won't expand the men's NIT. If they did, they might face a lawsuit from the sub-NIT tournaments accusing the NCAA of trying to force them out of business -- like the lawsuit filed by the NIT that resulted in the NCAA buying the NIT to make the lawsuit go away.

there were 33 schools with 20 or more wins last yr that sat at home
another 16 with 19 wins
alot of smaller schools never been to tourn
plenty rm for 3tier tourn

(02-27-2017 12:58 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  there were 33 schools with 20 or more wins last yr that sat at home
another 16 with 19 wins
alot of smaller schools never been to tourn
plenty rm for 3tier tourn

It wasn't from a shortage of playoff spots that 33 20+ win teams sat at home. Those schools elected to not play in the postseason. The CIT only had a 26 team field when it is a 32 team tournament and the Vegas 16 tournament only got 8 teams to commit. Between those 2 tournaments there were 14 available playoff spots and nobody wanted them.

Ya. There's room/demand for a third tier tournament...just not sure 3 are necessary...

(02-26-2017 07:19 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 08:45 PM)JCMiner Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 08:33 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 08:10 PM)JCMiner Wrote:  Does anyone have any news if the Vegas 16 will host a tournament this season?

Yes they are.

Are you sure? I'm about to make an online bet with a troll on the UTEP message board for a one year ban. He says that for a fact it went under I argue it's returning.

BD Global still thinks so. They own the tournament. http://www.bdglobalsports.com

I don't think I'd make that bet. I was wondering the same thing the other day and did some searching. There hasn't been any news since last year regarding continuing the tournament. The website still exists but hasn't updated since last year at all. They might try to make a go at it but they've still got to get interested programs, a problem they had last year. I wonder if my Monarchs aren't going to be the answer to a future sports trivia question. "Who won the first and only Vegas 16 Tournament?"

(02-27-2017 01:22 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-26-2017 07:19 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 08:45 PM)JCMiner Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 08:33 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-24-2017 08:10 PM)JCMiner Wrote:  Does anyone have any news if the Vegas 16 will host a tournament this season?

Yes they are.

Are you sure? I'm about to make an online bet with a troll on the UTEP message board for a one year ban. He says that for a fact it went under I argue it's returning.

BD Global still thinks so. They own the tournament. http://www.bdglobalsports.com

I don't think I'd make that bet. I was wondering the same thing the other day and did some searching. There hasn't been any news since last year regarding continuing the tournament. The website still exists but hasn't updated since last year at all. They might try to make a go at it but they've still got to get interested programs, a problem they had last year. I wonder if my Monarchs aren't going to be the answer to a future sports trivia question. "Who won the first and only Vegas 16 Tournament?"

I'm a bit concerned that the Vegas 16 will not return. Their twitter account is active posting almost daily. I have sent a couple of tweets asking if they will be returning but they haven't responded. If I lose the bet it's fair game I could use the extra time I waste away on message boards. If I win the bet I'll be a hero over at Minerdigs since no one can stand that guy. Either way it's a win win situation.

(02-27-2017 01:08 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Ya. There's room/demand for a third tier tournament...just not sure 3 are necessary...

I think that's quite right ... a 16 team mid-major, winning team only and a general 3rd tier 16 team tournament at a fixed location would cover it, but the nature of the beast is that the NCAA cannot impose those constraint, it has to be the market, and that makes it a lot messier.

The old NWIT women's tournament was a great event (yeah it went broke but it was in Amarillo and it lasted 30 years).

If I were Vegas I would use their model. Eight teams, four games a day for three days. In the NWIT (at least later years), the winners of the first four games would advance and play each other but the losers would continue to play as well. So first four winners would advance to play for spots 1-4 with the two winners going to the championship and two losers playing for 3-4. The first days four losers would play and the two winners would play for 5-6 and the two losers for 7-8.

Fans could make their travel plans for exciting Amarillo knowing their team was playing three games no matter what. Coaches and ADs could justify the expense knowing the team was getting three more games of experience no matter what.

(02-27-2017 12:22 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The NCAA won't expand the men's NIT. If they did, they might face a lawsuit from the sub-NIT tournaments accusing the NCAA of trying to force them out of business -- like the lawsuit filed by the NIT that resulted in the NCAA buying the NIT to make the lawsuit go away.

NCAA buy the CIT like the NIT and the problem would be solved. 64 team NIT. Seed the top 16. Regionalize the bracket to keep costs down after the seeds.

(02-26-2017 08:33 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  Wish they would do just what the women's side does with a 64 NIT team.

The women's side also had a third tier tournament.

http://www.womensbasketballinvitational....ding/index

So while WNIT does exist and has 32 additional teams compared to NIT, you still have a third tier tournament that keeps all things 'even' if you will/

The inaugural V8gas can be seen as a failure, but it is interesting seeing a new third-tier tournament muscle in and compete.

(02-28-2017 10:42 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 12:22 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The NCAA won't expand the men's NIT. If they did, they might face a lawsuit from the sub-NIT tournaments accusing the NCAA of trying to force them out of business -- like the lawsuit filed by the NIT that resulted in the NCAA buying the NIT to make the lawsuit go away.

NCAA buy the CIT like the NIT and the problem would be solved. 64 team NIT. Seed the top 16. Regionalize the bracket to keep costs down after the seeds.

The one exception would be that conference champions get first right of refusal to host. If two conference champs play, host goes to higher seed. Nobody will show up in Alabama to watch an NIT game vs Bradley. Have a Bradley type conference champ host and they will be sitting in the rafters.

(02-28-2017 01:26 PM)Shox Wrote:  

(02-28-2017 10:42 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 12:22 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The NCAA won't expand the men's NIT. If they did, they might face a lawsuit from the sub-NIT tournaments accusing the NCAA of trying to force them out of business -- like the lawsuit filed by the NIT that resulted in the NCAA buying the NIT to make the lawsuit go away.

NCAA buy the CIT like the NIT and the problem would be solved. 64 team NIT. Seed the top 16. Regionalize the bracket to keep costs down after the seeds.

The one exception would be that conference champions get first right of refusal to host. If two conference champs play, host goes to higher seed. Nobody will show up in Alabama to watch an NIT game vs Bradley. Have a Bradley type conference champ host and they will be sitting in the rafters.

Those lower tier tournaments generally work out good for MVC teams. We just buy our way to the championship game. We did in the CIT, Evansville did and so did Loyola.

(02-28-2017 10:42 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 12:22 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The NCAA won't expand the men's NIT. If they did, they might face a lawsuit from the sub-NIT tournaments accusing the NCAA of trying to force them out of business -- like the lawsuit filed by the NIT that resulted in the NCAA buying the NIT to make the lawsuit go away.

NCAA buy the CIT like the NIT and the problem would be solved. 64 team NIT. Seed the top 16. Regionalize the bracket to keep costs down after the seeds.

If they seed the top 16 and expand to a 48 team field, with a guarantee that every conference gets its "best conference regular season school not in the NCAA" in the NIT, there'd be room in the market for one third tier tournament, and whether it was the CIT, CBI or Vegas would be market competition, not the NIT's "fault".

That would be to the net benefit of an upper tier of single bid conferences, who would have a guaranteed NIT bid for their regular season champion, or runner up if their champion won the conference tourney, and a better chance than today at getting a second team into the NIT.

There will be no Vegas 16 this year. But strangely, they intend to try again this year.

(03-10-2017 08:50 AM)Rube Dali Wrote:  There will be no Vegas 16 this year. But strangely, they intend to try again this year.

Thought that something was up with the Vegas16.com website rerouted to BD Global.
If they really want to develop this tournament and compete against the CBI and CIT, they need to pay teams to come. As big as BD Global is, they could 'invest' $750,000 to develop this tournament and pay teams $25k for each round. Do that and you get better teams and school that will take you over the CBI and CIT. Once establish, they can compete against the NIT will bigger payouts to get P5 schools.

Sounds like the bigger issue was the 2 week delay in starting the tournament.

(03-10-2017 10:03 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-10-2017 08:50 AM)Rube Dali Wrote:  There will be no Vegas 16 this year. But strangely, they intend to try again this year.

Thought that something was up with the Vegas16.com website rerouted to BD Global.
If they really want to develop this tournament and compete against the CBI and CIT, they need to pay teams to come. As big as BD Global is, they could 'invest' $750,000 to develop this tournament and pay teams $25k for each round. Do that and you get better teams and school that will take you over the CBI and CIT. Once establish, they can compete against the NIT will bigger payouts to get P5 schools.

Sounds like the bigger issue was the 2 week delay in starting the tournament.

I think the bigger problem is that the P-5, rightly in my mind, are being aggressively opposed to anything that isn't directly operated by the NCAA. When that attitude spreads towards the smaller leagues, the CBI and CIT will go by the wayside.

The P5 seem to enjoy post-season that isn't run by the NCAA. The CFP and bowls are all privately operated.
The P5 dislike revenue negative post-season events.

I think the only way you make Vegas 16 attractive is to make it the Vegas 8 or the Orlando 8. Four games a day play it out for positions 1-8 so everyone gets three games.
Play the final on the Sunday before the national championship game, take that Saturday off or play early, and either start on Thursday or Friday, probably best to play Thursday, Friday, get Saturday off and then finish on Sunday.

Market it as a basketball bowl style event. Where there is an emphasis on getting more practice time and activities for the players to make it more than show up and play. Longer lead time at a destination would make it easier to sell to fans.

(03-10-2017 11:52 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The P5 seem to enjoy post-season that isn't run by the NCAA. The CFP and bowls are all privately operated.
The P5 dislike revenue negative post-season events.

I think the only way you make Vegas 16 attractive is to make it the Vegas 8 or the Orlando 8. Four games a day play it out for positions 1-8 so everyone gets three games.
Play the final on the Sunday before the national championship game, take that Saturday off or play early, and either start on Thursday or Friday, probably best to play Thursday, Friday, get Saturday off and then finish on Sunday.

Market it as a basketball bowl style event. Where there is an emphasis on getting more practice time and activities for the players to make it more than show up and play. Longer lead time at a destination would make it easier to sell to fans.

That seems to be the key there.