The fields for these tournaments are set, and no William and Mary. Also of note, no other CAA teams chose to participate either. It seems like these tournaments are now really struggling to attract teams. The CIT has shrunk from a 32 team tournament, to 26 the past 2 years, down to 20 this year. The CIT includes a plethora of teams with a sub 200 RPI, and the CBI includes 3 teams with losing records.

At first, I was kinda miffed WM chooses not to compete in these tournaments. But looking at the fields this year, I'm kinda glad we didn't. Not sure how much we'd gain by playing a 15-17 Rio Grande Valley on a Wednesday night...

I wonder if they'd be better of condensing into 1 tournament of either 24 or 32 teams. The top few teams from these tournaments are OK (Wofford, South Dakota, Eastern Michigan, San Francisco, etc) and the type of field I'd love to see WM in, but the depth is just bad. I get the pay to play tournaments are just trying to make money, but it feels a little hollow to have small major teams with losing records playing.

IDK what happened to them, when it first started the CIT was able to get a fair amount of respectable small majors, and the CBI could draw a few power conference teams - the first ever CBI included UVA, Richmond, ODU, Cincinnati, Washington, UTEP, Utah, Nevada, etc. Both tournaments seem to be getting worse year by year.

There are now a few years of results from these tournaments, and schools are looking at the cost vs benefit, and well... the fallout speaks pretty clearly.

25% of the D1 NCAA schools controlled 60% of the NCAA/NIT slots this year which means that ballpark 65% of the high major teams are still playing, but only 15% of midmajors are getting the same money generating opportunities in those two tournaments.

Another way to consider that is that W&M is trying to be in the top 15% of midmajors on a shoestring budget. Based on RPI only, we finished in the top 11% of midmajors. Anybody who thinks Tony and staff are not overachieving is crazy, especially considering the consistency of where the program has been for the past four years with respect to RPI, regardless of how you feel about RPI. (Yes, there may be some minor error in my numbers, but it is all in the ballpark.)

Sent from my SM-N910V using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-12-2018 11:28 AM)WM Beancounter Wrote:  There are now a few years of results from these tournaments, and schools are looking at the cost vs benefit, and well... the fallout speaks pretty clearly.

Instead of focusing on the fallout from the CIT/CBI, I respectfully suggest that you focus on the fallout from the discrimination against mid-major at large teams come tournament time.

With few exceptions, every D-1 school participates in a conference tourney.

Yet, after that, the NCAA, the organization itself, only allows certain fan bases, over and over and over again, to enjoy post-conference tourney tourneys. The moat has been dug, the walls have been erected ... what about this fails to draw your ire?

This is academia. This is the place where everything is supposed to be equal, the place that rails against discrimination of any kind.

I'll give you fall-out.

Why should I donate?

Why are we allowing certain universities overwhelming free publicity, year after year after year?

Why aren't we saying, loudly and publicly, this is not right?

How does the second best team in the twelfth best conference not make the NCAA/NIT?

We've had a great run for five years, and what do we have to show for it? One NIT bid.

I'm not into docility. I'm not going to financially support docility.

Our lunch is being taken from us.

You don't like the CIT/CBI? Fine. Change it. Create a new tourney.

But right now, it's the only show in town for the mid-major at large folks.

Well, I think those that care are, and have been, saying that its not right. But I don't know else to do about it. The NCAA is sure as heck not going to change the rules no matter how loudly we all yell and scream, and in fact I feel certain that its only going to get worse. I'm willing to bet that within a decade, NO at-large bids will go to mid-majors, and the tournament will expand to whatever number of teams necessary to ensure that all the mid-majors have to participate in play-in rounds (at best). The people (and institutions) that control the tournament are the same ones that run the big schools, and they want to divide that pie in fewer slices, not more.

Personally, I have no time or capacity to "create a new tourney". I have the time and money to be a season ticket holder for Tribe basketball (and football), I give to the Tribe Club (and the College), I travel to as many away games as possible (including the CAA tournament), I purchase way too much W&M gear, and I participate on these boards. I'd certainly attend a postseason Virginia-only basketball tournament if one existed. I'm willing to bet that in terms of participation with the College, I'm in the top few percent of all W&M alumni.

I have no problem if some alumni want to band together and fund participation in sending our men's team to the CBI or CIT. Go for it. I wouldn't attend such a game, even if we hosted it. But I respect anyone's decision to pool their money for such a purpose. The argument over whether the College should fund such a bid versus spending money on something else is really moot, because the money doesn't exist to start with.

My opinion on the value of these tournaments has been stated clearly elsewhere, so I don't need to reiterate it here.

The NIT needs to mimic the WNIT and have a 64 team tournament with an automatic bid from each conference. That would generate more interest in the NIT and essentially eliminate the CBI/CIT.

(03-12-2018 02:09 PM)J.B. Wrote:  The NIT needs to mimic the WNIT and have a 64 team tournament with an automatic bid from each conference. That would generate more interest in the NIT and essentially eliminate the CBI/CIT.

Best idea yet, with all the automatic bids this year for lower tier teams it left little room for mid majors to get into the NIT.

Sad reality-- the players (and probably some of the coaching staff, too) have little to no interest in playing in the CBI or CIT. And many quietly don't mind missing out on the NIT.

Basketball season kicks off in full swing in early October. From then through the first week of March, the players, coaches, managers, and trainers spend close to 4 hours per day (often more) participating in some kind of basketball-mandated activity. This commitment runs for over 80% of William and Mary's academic year, taking up fall break, thanksgiving break, winter break, and effectively spring break. While everyone absolutely wants to be competitive and put themselves in the best position possible to win the CAAT, the end of the season comes as sort of a relief to those, specifically players and managers, who have to face the pressures of producing at a high level academically and in their other extracurriculars. It's hard for these 18-22 year olds to have a futuristic perspective on these tournaments-- that is, they aren't thinking about how their participation in the CBI/CIT will impact the program beyond their graduation date. While I'm unsure whether Tony would rather spend that time with the current team or use it for recruiting (or just to rest and relax... the season is a grind for him, too), the push to play in these tournaments comes almost exclusively from the fans. I'm not defending the program's perspective. That's just how it is.

I'm not a big fan of the pay-to-play tournaments as they have devolved but this is not a good year for W&M to participate. Consider:

1) We start off by telling Cohn and Burchfield to sit, because we are playing to develop Loewe and Jihar? That would have an interesting affect on team chemistry. And does the same apply to Tot, Harrison and Glover?
2) At what positions will Pierce (small or big forward), Knight (post or strong forward), Milon (small forward or two guard) and Rowley (post, strong forward or small forward) need to practice? One can always hope that a player currently not on the roster will force their way into the rotation and change the rotation from what we currently anticipate.
3) We have four to six new players coming on board next year. They will totally change the makeup and chemistry of the team.
4) As has been pointed out, this has been a long year, extended by the preseason tournament.

Next year, when everyone but Rowley should be returning, is a year to consider to pay-to-play.