(01-06-2022 02:17 PM)dave108 Wrote:  

(01-06-2022 11:43 AM)mustangxc Wrote:  I think the key is whether it is as a result of an unexpectedly good season vs an unexpectedly bad season. Houston, Memphis, Wichita State and SMU expected to be in the NCAA tournament this season so an NIT appearance would be acceptable but a CBI bid totally unacceptable. Temple, Tulsa, Tulane, ECU, and USF would be having solid results relative to expectations so they would be foolish not to use it as additional practice time and to reward their teams. UCF didn't make any post-season tournament last year so I'm not sure how they should handle it. Cincinnati might be too proud to accept it even though it would probably be beneficial for this group of players.

someone on the uc 247 site posted a thread that uc mens bball needs a "roster enema". as bad as that sounds, it may not be all that wrong. i'm not sure how many of the current players are back next year - coach miller had minimal time to cobble together a bunch of transfers, etc. right now, it is kind of a mess

Hammering SMU right now with that mess.

(01-06-2022 01:04 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(01-06-2022 12:00 PM)mustangxc Wrote:  It is an investment in the program much like lower tier bowl games. Develop young players by having more practice time and giving some of the younger players more playing time in game situations.

Absolutely true.

In addition, tournaments are a very special and important part of college basketball to most young student athletes. Universities with tournament teams, even CBI and CIT teams are going to get a recruiting (and publicity, advertising, and public relations) boost.

As an AAC fan, I'm really glad that UAB and North Texas made the investment required to play in the CBI. I believe that by making that investment, both schools proved that they're serious about building strong D1 programs, step by step.

I would just like UAB to make it back to the days of sweet 16 and elite 8 appearances :(

(01-06-2022 11:32 PM)Engblazr Wrote:  

(01-06-2022 01:04 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(01-06-2022 12:00 PM)mustangxc Wrote:  It is an investment in the program much like lower tier bowl games. Develop young players by having more practice time and giving some of the younger players more playing time in game situations.

Absolutely true.

In addition, tournaments are a very special and important part of college basketball to most young student athletes. Universities with tournament teams, even CBI and CIT teams are going to get a recruiting (and publicity, advertising, and public relations) boost.

As an AAC fan, I'm really glad that UAB and North Texas made the investment required to play in the CBI. I believe that by making that investment, both schools proved that they're serious about building strong D1 programs, step by step.

I would just like UAB to make it back to the days of sweet 16 and elite 8 appearances :(

Yeah, that CBI game (which we lost) was a disappointing end to a disappointing season, setting the stage for another disappointing season that finally got Ehsan fired. So maybe it did help build the program.

The previous team had supposedly been loaded and went nowhere (20 wins, no postseason). A couple of those guys graduated, most others walked out and transferred rather than play one more game with our "superstar" PG. The 2018-19 team added a passel of transfers and three three-star HS players, the "best" of whom promptly gained 100 pounds (and that may be an underestimate) and rarely played. (To be fair, the lowest-ranked one, Tavin Lovan, developed into an All-CUSA player). Both teams had a lethal lockerroom cancer, and until Ehsan manned up and tossed him, no number of CBI games were curing the problems that guy caused (but he was talented! So talented he's warming a bench in Finland now).

UAB wasted the $50K and should have applied it to Ehsan's buyout (or a one-way ticket to Helsinki) instead. Maybe it made sense before the new era of Portal+NIL, when you could justify some more games to develop young players. Not now.

(01-07-2022 01:03 AM)58-56 Wrote:  Maybe it made sense before the new era of Portal+NIL, when you could justify some more games to develop young players. Not now.

We'll see, in March/April, if there are any noticeable trends. It seems most likely that there will always be some schools that feel there would be more to lose than to gain, and others that are trying to improve their programs that feel that there is more to gain than to lose by playing in the less prestigious tournaments.

North Texas is an example of a school that elected to play in the CBI (2018), performed very well (winning the CBI championship), and went on to win their conference tournament and play in the 2021 NCAA tournament. As North Texas found, Head Coaches can benefit from post-season tournament experience, as much as players can.

.

(01-06-2022 11:56 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  In Covid times, it doesn't make any sense to go. No reason for a player to get sick for the CBI.

What are the payouts for these games? Does it even make financial sense for travel and lodging for the CBI...

I think I remember the Tampa Bay Times reporting that USF lost money by going to the CBI.

Hopefully the pandemic will be diminished by then but yes...the added costs of care, extra testing, etc...this is not a normal year.

Maybe more teams this year will reject an invite to those tournaments , even though many teams have rejected them in the past.

(01-06-2022 11:27 AM)Bull Wrote:  I guess it all depends on perspective. That CBI championship for USF was a fairly isolated very bright spot in our last decade of BB. Frequent NCAA tourney participants will view it as a 'step down'. I think the schools always owe it to their athletes to get post season play whenever possible.

I think that CBI championship gives USF another banner it can put up in its arena and point to an accomplishment by the program. It's absolutely a positive thing, in my view. But, as you said . . . perspective. I can see where programs could make an argument for staying out due to things like expenses and not getting much benefit in terms of marketing the product.

(01-07-2022 01:03 AM)58-56 Wrote:  

(01-06-2022 11:32 PM)Engblazr Wrote:  

(01-06-2022 01:04 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(01-06-2022 12:00 PM)mustangxc Wrote:  It is an investment in the program much like lower tier bowl games. Develop young players by having more practice time and giving some of the younger players more playing time in game situations.

Absolutely true.

In addition, tournaments are a very special and important part of college basketball to most young student athletes. Universities with tournament teams, even CBI and CIT teams are going to get a recruiting (and publicity, advertising, and public relations) boost.

As an AAC fan, I'm really glad that UAB and North Texas made the investment required to play in the CBI. I believe that by making that investment, both schools proved that they're serious about building strong D1 programs, step by step.

I would just like UAB to make it back to the days of sweet 16 and elite 8 appearances :(

Yeah, that CBI game (which we lost) was a disappointing end to a disappointing season, setting the stage for another disappointing season that finally got Ehsan fired. So maybe it did help build the program.

The previous team had supposedly been loaded and went nowhere (20 wins, no postseason). A couple of those guys graduated, most others walked out and transferred rather than play one more game with our "superstar" PG. The 2018-19 team added a passel of transfers and three three-star HS players, the "best" of whom promptly gained 100 pounds (and that may be an underestimate) and rarely played. (To be fair, the lowest-ranked one, Tavin Lovan, developed into an All-CUSA player). Both teams had a lethal lockerroom cancer, and until Ehsan manned up and tossed him, no number of CBI games were curing the problems that guy caused (but he was talented! So talented he's warming a bench in Finland now).

UAB wasted the $50K and should have applied it to Ehsan's buyout (or a one-way ticket to Helsinki) instead. Maybe it made sense before the new era of Portal+NIL, when you could justify some more games to develop young players. Not now.

Playing in that tournament was the low point for me as a UAB fan/alum. Then, in that tournament, we lost to Brown and a new low was found. That was a fireable offense imo.

(01-14-2022 12:12 PM)Blazer4Life14 Wrote:  

(01-07-2022 01:03 AM)58-56 Wrote:  

(01-06-2022 11:32 PM)Engblazr Wrote:  

(01-06-2022 01:04 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(01-06-2022 12:00 PM)mustangxc Wrote:  It is an investment in the program much like lower tier bowl games. Develop young players by having more practice time and giving some of the younger players more playing time in game situations.

Absolutely true.

In addition, tournaments are a very special and important part of college basketball to most young student athletes. Universities with tournament teams, even CBI and CIT teams are going to get a recruiting (and publicity, advertising, and public relations) boost.

As an AAC fan, I'm really glad that UAB and North Texas made the investment required to play in the CBI. I believe that by making that investment, both schools proved that they're serious about building strong D1 programs, step by step.

I would just like UAB to make it back to the days of sweet 16 and elite 8 appearances :(

Yeah, that CBI game (which we lost) was a disappointing end to a disappointing season, setting the stage for another disappointing season that finally got Ehsan fired. So maybe it did help build the program.

The previous team had supposedly been loaded and went nowhere (20 wins, no postseason). A couple of those guys graduated, most others walked out and transferred rather than play one more game with our "superstar" PG. The 2018-19 team added a passel of transfers and three three-star HS players, the "best" of whom promptly gained 100 pounds (and that may be an underestimate) and rarely played. (To be fair, the lowest-ranked one, Tavin Lovan, developed into an All-CUSA player). Both teams had a lethal lockerroom cancer, and until Ehsan manned up and tossed him, no number of CBI games were curing the problems that guy caused (but he was talented! So talented he's warming a bench in Finland now).

UAB wasted the $50K and should have applied it to Ehsan's buyout (or a one-way ticket to Helsinki) instead. Maybe it made sense before the new era of Portal+NIL, when you could justify some more games to develop young players. Not now.

Playing in that tournament was the low point for me as a UAB fan/alum. Then, in that tournament, we lost to Brown and a new low was found. That was a fireable offense imo.

Happily from UAB's perspective, the (#38, NET) Blazers are currently the highest ranked of the AAC MBB teams that will be competing in 2023-24, and they're the only one of those teams that is currently projected as a 2022 NCAA tournament team by more than 85 of the bracketologists surveyed by bracketmatrix.com.

Team (NET rank):

UAB (#38)
SMU (#49)
N. Texas (#52)
Memphis (#78)
Wichita St. (#83)

UAB also has a very capable veteran Head Coach. Their program seems likely to be considered one of the upper echelon programs in the (AAC 2.0).

.

(01-27-2022 11:50 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 12:12 PM)Blazer4Life14 Wrote:  

(01-07-2022 01:03 AM)58-56 Wrote:  

(01-06-2022 11:32 PM)Engblazr Wrote:  

(01-06-2022 01:04 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  Absolutely true.

In addition, tournaments are a very special and important part of college basketball to most young student athletes. Universities with tournament teams, even CBI and CIT teams are going to get a recruiting (and publicity, advertising, and public relations) boost.

As an AAC fan, I'm really glad that UAB and North Texas made the investment required to play in the CBI. I believe that by making that investment, both schools proved that they're serious about building strong D1 programs, step by step.

I would just like UAB to make it back to the days of sweet 16 and elite 8 appearances :(

Yeah, that CBI game (which we lost) was a disappointing end to a disappointing season, setting the stage for another disappointing season that finally got Ehsan fired. So maybe it did help build the program.

The previous team had supposedly been loaded and went nowhere (20 wins, no postseason). A couple of those guys graduated, most others walked out and transferred rather than play one more game with our "superstar" PG. The 2018-19 team added a passel of transfers and three three-star HS players, the "best" of whom promptly gained 100 pounds (and that may be an underestimate) and rarely played. (To be fair, the lowest-ranked one, Tavin Lovan, developed into an All-CUSA player). Both teams had a lethal lockerroom cancer, and until Ehsan manned up and tossed him, no number of CBI games were curing the problems that guy caused (but he was talented! So talented he's warming a bench in Finland now).

UAB wasted the $50K and should have applied it to Ehsan's buyout (or a one-way ticket to Helsinki) instead. Maybe it made sense before the new era of Portal+NIL, when you could justify some more games to develop young players. Not now.

Playing in that tournament was the low point for me as a UAB fan/alum. Then, in that tournament, we lost to Brown and a new low was found. That was a fireable offense imo.

Happily from UAB's perspective, the (#38, NET) Blazers are currently the highest ranked of the AAC MBB teams that will be competing in 2023-24, and they're the only one of those teams that is currently projected as a 2022 NCAA tournament team by more than 85 of the bracketologists surveyed by bracketmatrix.com.

Team (NET rank):

UAB (#38)
SMU (#49)
N. Texas (#52)
Memphis (#78)
Wichita St. (#83)

UAB also has a very capable veteran Head Coach. Their program seems likely to be considered one of the upper echelon programs in the (AAC 2.0).

.

As long as Andy Kennedy is here, we should be contenders.

No.

Don't teams have to pay to play in the CBI?

(01-28-2022 10:31 PM)gotigers1 Wrote:  Don't teams have to pay to play in the CBI?

no.. many high major just turn it down

(01-28-2022 10:45 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(01-28-2022 10:31 PM)gotigers1 Wrote:  Don't teams have to pay to play in the CBI?

no.. many high major just turn it down

Got it, thanks. I know one of those tournaments require you to pay to play. Maybe that's the CIT.

I don't know much about basketball, but I would think any post season is better than no post season. Maybe a handful of the new American teams will actually improve the conference. UAB has good basketball history, and a great coach.

.

(#55) SMU, (#43) UAB, and (#54) UNT appear to be likely to play in the NCAA or NIT.

Memphis and Cincy also have to be considered potential NCAA or NIT teams, though Memphis would probably have to win the AAC tournament to earn a NCAA bid.

Cincy and UCF might be unlikely to accept a CBI invitation, since they're heading to the Big 12 (although WVU did play in a very recent CBI tournament). UCF might be well advised to consider the option, since none of their players has had any post-season tournament experience.

(#82) Wichita State may be a NIT bubble team at this point. If they don't make the NIT, it would be a good idea for them to play in the CBI, since the tournament experience would be helpful for their players and HC alike.

The other potential CBI teams are (#110) Tulane and (#119) Temple. Like Tulane, both of these teams would have valuable post-season tournament experience to gain and nothing to lose by playing in the CBI.

.

By the time you get to CBI/CIT, there’s more than just NET rankings in play. Any school with a + W/L record can get a look. So keep an eye on these teams not already mentioned, but currently all three or four games over .500–

ECU
Rice
Charlotte
FAU

For example, Rice is 12-8 and mathematically eliminated from any at-large NCAA consideration. But if they win the games they should, they could easily be 18-13 or 19-13 and just need one or two CBI wins to become a 20-game winner.