(10-27-2023 02:19 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I could easily foresee the following happening sooner rather than later:

The ACC is raided, yielding even bigger SEC, Big Ten and Big 12. The remnants of the ACC either move to the Big 12 or create a "best of the rest" league. The most valuable Big East properties and Gonzaga variously join those three or four leagues (say, Marquette, Gonzaga and Creighton to the Big 12 and St. John's, Georgetown, UConn and Nova to the reinvented ACC).

It's coming, folks. JR has been predicting this for a long time.

Possible, but still very unlikely because the money wouldn't make it work. Non-football members (not named Notre Dame) are unlikely to ever command/earn $8-$10 million annually in a football-based league (that would mean that full members are earning $40 million annually). For networks (i.e. Fox) it is cheaper and more efficient to pay $6-$8 million annually per school for the Big East for its content.

The ACC, if it is raided, is certainly not getting $40 million annually per member for its next contract.

I’m not sure why anyone should be surprised.

If the Fox consolation tournament proposal with the Big Ten, Big East and Big 12 had gone forward, it would have effectively killed the NIT entirely. These NIT changes were about the tournament simply surviving.

(10-27-2023 02:35 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  I could be wrong about this, but this is what the NIT field would've looked like last season based on the NET rankings, but the use of an NIT committee could alter this. My list used was from the link below so hopefully they're correct (NET rankings after conference tourneys). * = Actual NIT Participants

NET Rankings: https://sports.betmgm.com/en/blog/ncaab/...ment-bm10/
Listed non-NCAA Tournament Teams: https://bracketologists.com/

Autobids:
#40 Rutgers (B1G, 19-14)*
#43 Oklahoma St. (B12, 18-15)*
#46 North Carolina (ACC, 20-13, declined)
#47 Oregon (PAC, 19-14)*
#52 Ohio St. (B1G, 16-19)
#60 Clemson (ACC, 23-10)*
#62 Florida (SEC, 16-16)*
#63 Texas Tech (B12, 16-16)
#69 Colorado (PAC, 17-16)*
#75 Villanova (BE, 17-16)*
#76 Virginia Tech (ACC, 19-14, replaces UNC as ACC autobid)*
#77 Seton Hall (BE, 16-15)*
#81 Vanderbilt (SEC, 20-14)*

At-Large:
#38 North Texas* (24-7)
#44 Liberty* (23-8)
#54 New Mexico* (21-11)
#57 UAB* (24-9)
#61 Michigan* (17-15)
#64 Yale* (19-8)
#65 Sam Houston St.* (21-7)
#68 Oklahoma (15-17)
#70 Cincinnati* (20-12)
#71 UCF* (18-14)
#72 Bradley* (24-9)
#73 Washington St.* (17-16)
#74 Utah Valley* (22-8)
#78 Dayton (22-12, declined)
#79 Utah (17-15)
#80 Wisconsin* (17-14)
#82 Toledo* (26-7)
#83 Marshall (23-8)
#84 Santa Clara* (22-9)
#85 BYU (17-15, replaces VT as at-large)
#86 Hofstra* (23-9, replaces Dayton)

First Four Out:
#87 Southern Miss* (22-7)
#90 Wake Forest (19-14)
#91 UNLV (18-13)
#92 Nebraska (16-16)

Remaining NIT Participants not Qualifying:
#96 UC Irvine* (21-11)
#123 Youngstown St.* (22-9)
#128 Eastern Washington* (21-10)
#228 Morehead St.* (17-11)
#245 Alcorn St.* (18-13)

This has been fixed. Again assuming NET rankings after conference tournaments. NIT committee could place other teams in.

(10-27-2023 03:07 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’m not sure why anyone should be surprised.

If the Fox consolation tournament proposal with the Big Ten, Big East and Big 12 had gone forward, it would have effectively killed the NIT entirely. These NIT changes were about the tournament simply surviving.

Disappointment/frustration aren't the same as surprised.

(10-27-2023 02:56 PM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 02:44 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I don't know that declined bids then could be automatically replaced in conference. Probably so but no guarantee.

I'm not sure declining a bid will be an option. If the idea is to sell this for more money because more big names will be involved, UNC damn well better show up if they are "worthy."

That’s likely a stipulation for the changes (and if it’s not, then it should be): there is no choice about participation when the NIT is reserving slots for the power conferences.

(10-27-2023 02:37 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 02:35 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  I could be wrong about this, but this is what the NIT field would've looked like last season based on the NET rankings, but the use of an NIT committee could alter this. My list used was from the link below so hopefully they're correct (NET rankings after conference tourneys). * = Actual NIT Participants
https://bracketologists.com/

Autobids:
#40 Rutgers (B1G)*
#42 Oklahoma St. (B12)*
#44 North Carolina (ACC, declined)
#45 Oregon (PAC)*
#49 Ohio St. (B1G)
#62 Texas Tech (B12)
#67 Clemson (ACC)*
#71 Villanova (BE)*
#73 Florida (SEC)*
#74 Seton Hall (BE)*
#75 Virginia Tech (ACC, replaces UNC)*
#77 Colorado (PAC)*
#81 Vanderbilt (SEC)*

At-Large:
#33 North Texas*
#39 UAB*
#46 Liberty*
#57 Michigan*
#58 Utah Valley*
#63 Cincinnati*
#64 New Mexico*
#65 Yale*
#66 UCF*
#69 Sam Houston St.*
#70 Oklahoma
#72 Wisconsin*
#77 Dayton (declined)
#78 Bradley*
#79 Washington St.*
#80 Utah
#82 Toledo*
#83 Marshall
#84 BYU
#85 Hofstra*
#87 Santa Clara* (replaces Dayton)

First Four Out:
#89 Wake Forest
#90 Southern Miss*
#91 St. John's
#92 Nebraska

Remaining NIT Participants not Qualifying:
#102 UC Irvine*
#120 Eastern Washington*
#127 Youngstown St.*
#219 Morehead St.*
#245 Alcorn St.*

So this might actually help upper mid-majors. That's kind of what I expected. The net bids added to P5 schools would be less than the net bids subtracted from low major autobids.

On this one I totally agree.

NIT is saying they'll give the P6 at least 2 but then after that point they are cut off. That opens the door for upper mid majors.

The P6 is also soon to become the P5 so they will have only 10 guarantees.

Also incentivizes recruiting in the upper mid majors since they'll have an edge on low majors in making NCAAT or NIT.

If I counted right out of the last 20 NIT winners 15 were in P6 conferences. Mid majors are having a hard time even winning the NIT. Consolidation (as already brought up) is giving lower tier P6s a financial gap advantage that others just can't keep up with. And with those same schools bringing a potential ratings increase over MMs it was just a matter of time before something like this happened to keep the NIT "viable".

No one really cares about the NIT, well only fans of certain conferences that like to use it as evidence that their conference is better than yours. I bet most of the folks lamenting the change havent watched an NIT game in years, if ever.

(10-27-2023 02:59 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 02:19 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I could easily foresee the following happening sooner rather than later:

The ACC is raided, yielding even bigger SEC, Big Ten and Big 12. The remnants of the ACC either move to the Big 12 or create a "best of the rest" league. The most valuable Big East properties and Gonzaga variously join those three or four leagues (say, Marquette, Gonzaga and Creighton to the Big 12 and St. John's, Georgetown, UConn and Nova to the reinvented ACC).

It's coming, folks. JR has been predicting this for a long time.

Possible, but still very unlikely because the money wouldn't make it work. Non-football members (not named Notre Dame) are unlikely to ever command/earn $8-$10 million annually in a football-based league (that would mean that full members are earning $40 million annually). For networks (i.e. Fox) it is cheaper and more efficient to pay $6-$8 million annually per school for the Big East for its content.

The ACC, if it is raided, is certainly not getting $40 million annually per member for its next contract.

Fair points and good job with presenting the numbers. I often overlook the key element that is driving all this conference realignment: media payouts.

I strongly hope the Big East doesn't blow up because 1. I enjoy the league and its model (all private schools in big cities, sans UConn); and 2. DePaul could be in trouble.

Your Marquette program will be fine regardless. You know I'm a Shaka fan.

(10-27-2023 03:23 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  No one really cares about the NIT, well only fans of certain conferences that like to use it as evidence that their conference is better than yours. I bet most of the folks lamenting the change havent watched an NIT game in years, if ever.

The much larger picture is that the NCAA is needing to move away from their superficial neutrality and towards ensuring that the power conferences are happy or else they will find ways to partially or totally split off (see the proposed Fox tournament with the Big Ten, Big East and Big 12). The NIT changes might not be a big deal in a vacuum… but if/when the power conferences demand more money and/or bids for the NCAA Tournament (which everyone cares about), they’re going to point to the NIT as precedent.

(10-27-2023 03:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 03:23 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  No one really cares about the NIT, well only fans of certain conferences that like to use it as evidence that their conference is better than yours. I bet most of the folks lamenting the change havent watched an NIT game in years, if ever.

The much larger picture is that the NCAA is needing to move away from their superficial neutrality and towards ensuring that the power conferences are happy or else they will find ways to partially or totally split off (see the proposed Fox tournament with the Big Ten, Big East and Big 12). The NIT changes might not be a big deal in a vacuum… but if/when the power conferences demand more money and/or bids for the NCAA Tournament (which everyone cares about), they’re going to point to the NIT as precedent.

Sure but is 2 PAC in and out of all of this?

Do some of these guarantees allow for a 2 PAC rebuild?

If only the P6 are getting guaranteed NIT bids what does it mean for "major" conferences like the WCC, AAC, MWC, A10? Do we conclude they aren't major anymore?

(10-27-2023 03:17 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 02:37 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 02:35 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  I could be wrong about this, but this is what the NIT field would've looked like last season based on the NET rankings, but the use of an NIT committee could alter this. My list used was from the link below so hopefully they're correct (NET rankings after conference tourneys). * = Actual NIT Participants
https://bracketologists.com/

Autobids:
#40 Rutgers (B1G)*
#42 Oklahoma St. (B12)*
#44 North Carolina (ACC, declined)
#45 Oregon (PAC)*
#49 Ohio St. (B1G)
#62 Texas Tech (B12)
#67 Clemson (ACC)*
#71 Villanova (BE)*
#73 Florida (SEC)*
#74 Seton Hall (BE)*
#75 Virginia Tech (ACC, replaces UNC)*
#77 Colorado (PAC)*
#81 Vanderbilt (SEC)*

At-Large:
#33 North Texas*
#39 UAB*
#46 Liberty*
#57 Michigan*
#58 Utah Valley*
#63 Cincinnati*
#64 New Mexico*
#65 Yale*
#66 UCF*
#69 Sam Houston St.*
#70 Oklahoma
#72 Wisconsin*
#77 Dayton (declined)
#78 Bradley*
#79 Washington St.*
#80 Utah
#82 Toledo*
#83 Marshall
#84 BYU
#85 Hofstra*
#87 Santa Clara* (replaces Dayton)

First Four Out:
#89 Wake Forest
#90 Southern Miss*
#91 St. John's
#92 Nebraska

Remaining NIT Participants not Qualifying:
#102 UC Irvine*
#120 Eastern Washington*
#127 Youngstown St.*
#219 Morehead St.*
#245 Alcorn St.*

So this might actually help upper mid-majors. That's kind of what I expected. The net bids added to P5 schools would be less than the net bids subtracted from low major autobids.

On this one I totally agree.

NIT is saying they'll give the P6 at least 2 but then after that point they are cut off. That opens the door for upper mid majors.

The P6 is also soon to become the P5 so they will have only 10 guarantees.

Also incentivizes recruiting in the upper mid majors since they'll have an edge on low majors in making NCAAT or NIT.

Idk, I think the B1G and SEC might push for a 3rd bid each instead of dropping to 10 autobids. Maybe the ACC and B12 also ask for a 3rd as well since they'll all be 16-18 team conferences as opposed to 14-15 team conferences. Maybe they let it drop to 10, but I don't they will.

(10-27-2023 03:37 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 03:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 03:23 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  No one really cares about the NIT, well only fans of certain conferences that like to use it as evidence that their conference is better than yours. I bet most of the folks lamenting the change havent watched an NIT game in years, if ever.

The much larger picture is that the NCAA is needing to move away from their superficial neutrality and towards ensuring that the power conferences are happy or else they will find ways to partially or totally split off (see the proposed Fox tournament with the Big Ten, Big East and Big 12). The NIT changes might not be a big deal in a vacuum… but if/when the power conferences demand more money and/or bids for the NCAA Tournament (which everyone cares about), they’re going to point to the NIT as precedent.

Sure but is 2 PAC in and out of all of this?

Do some of these guarantees allow for a 2 PAC rebuild?

If only the P6 are getting guaranteed NIT bids what does it mean for "major" conferences like the WCC, AAC, MWC, A10? Do we conclude they aren't major anymore?

When talking about the WCC, AAC, MWC and A10, it is more about the programs and less about the leagues. For example, Memphis (yes, I'm biased) and Gonzaga, for example, are "major programs" by most metrics. But there are too many members in each of those leagues that are perceived as mid-major for some to, in general terms, justify being able to classify any one (or all four) of the WCC, AAC, MWC and A10 as "major" conferences.

When I talk with friends in Nashville (lots of Big Ten, SEC and ACC people here) regarding college basketball and who are a bit uncertain as to why I (and other knowledgeable folks) describe Big East men's hoops as "power," I put it in simple terms: Each of the 11 members of the BE is, at the minimum, a "major" program (for example, DePaul). Some are "high-major" programs, such as Marquette. And two are elite/blueblood-esque: Nova and UConn. This quality yields a "power" league in one sport for the BE.

The WCC, AAC, MWC and A10 — though all quality leagues and each with a few major to high-major programs — offers "bottom halves" that simply harm their images.

(10-27-2023 03:07 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 02:35 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  I could be wrong about this, but this is what the NIT field would've looked like last season based on the NET rankings, but the use of an NIT committee could alter this. My list used was from the link below so hopefully they're correct (NET rankings after conference tourneys). * = Actual NIT Participants

NET Rankings: https://sports.betmgm.com/en/blog/ncaab/...ment-bm10/
Listed non-NCAA Tournament Teams: https://bracketologists.com/

Autobids:
#40 Rutgers (B1G, 19-14)*
#43 Oklahoma St. (B12, 18-15)*
#46 North Carolina (ACC, 20-13, declined)
#47 Oregon (PAC, 19-14)*
#52 Ohio St. (B1G, 16-19)
#60 Clemson (ACC, 23-10)*
#62 Florida (SEC, 16-16)*
#63 Texas Tech (B12, 16-16)
#69 Colorado (PAC, 17-16)*
#75 Villanova (BE, 17-16)*
#76 Virginia Tech (ACC, 19-14, replaces UNC as ACC autobid)*
#77 Seton Hall (BE, 16-15)*
#81 Vanderbilt (SEC, 20-14)*

At-Large:
#38 North Texas* (24-7)
#44 Liberty* (23-8)
#54 New Mexico* (21-11)
#57 UAB* (24-9)
#61 Michigan* (17-15)
#64 Yale* (19-8)
#65 Sam Houston St.* (21-7)
#68 Oklahoma (15-17)
#70 Cincinnati* (20-12)
#71 UCF* (18-14)
#72 Bradley* (24-9)
#73 Washington St.* (17-16)
#74 Utah Valley* (22-8)
#78 Dayton (22-12, declined)
#79 Utah (17-15)
#80 Wisconsin* (17-14)
#82 Toledo* (26-7)
#83 Marshall (23-8)
#84 Santa Clara* (22-9)
#85 BYU (17-15, replaces VT as at-large)
#86 Hofstra* (23-9, replaces Dayton)

First Four Out:
#87 Southern Miss* (22-7)
#90 Wake Forest (19-14)
#91 UNLV (18-13)
#92 Nebraska (16-16)

Remaining NIT Participants not Qualifying:
#96 UC Irvine* (21-11)
#123 Youngstown St.* (22-9)
#128 Eastern Washington* (21-10)
#228 Morehead St.* (17-11)
#245 Alcorn St.* (18-13)

This has been fixed. Again assuming NET rankings after conference tournaments. NIT committee could place other teams in.

Of the ones that no longer would have made it:

UCI: Lost round 1 to Oregon
Youngstown: Lost by 5 in the first round to Ok St
Eastern Washington: Won round 1 over Wash St, lost round 2 to OK St
Morehead: Won round 1 over Clemson, lost round 2 to UAB (runner up)
Alcorn: Lost round 1 to North Texas (champion)

So 2 of them got to have a post season game where they beat a P5 school, 2 lost to the championship game participants, and the other lost to a P5 opponent.

I'd say at least Eastern Washington and Morehead got something good out of the NIT they otherwise would have missed.

The P6 are not cut off after the first 12.

So, I guess C-USA kind of ruined it for the others. Seems they didn't like an all C-USA final.

But here's why this is going to backfire. It's just going to make it easier for the upper mids that get screwed out of the NCAA Tournament to win games in the NIT, because they're going to be playing more average teams that shouldn't be in but are because of this new criteria. This will likely increase mid majors who make it getting deep.

(10-27-2023 03:48 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The P6 are not cut off after the first 12.

Right, the first 12 are just guaranteed for the P6. The remaining 20 could be entirely P6 as well if that's how the cards fell.

(10-27-2023 03:47 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 03:37 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 03:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 03:23 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  No one really cares about the NIT, well only fans of certain conferences that like to use it as evidence that their conference is better than yours. I bet most of the folks lamenting the change havent watched an NIT game in years, if ever.

The much larger picture is that the NCAA is needing to move away from their superficial neutrality and towards ensuring that the power conferences are happy or else they will find ways to partially or totally split off (see the proposed Fox tournament with the Big Ten, Big East and Big 12). The NIT changes might not be a big deal in a vacuum… but if/when the power conferences demand more money and/or bids for the NCAA Tournament (which everyone cares about), they’re going to point to the NIT as precedent.

Sure but is 2 PAC in and out of all of this?

Do some of these guarantees allow for a 2 PAC rebuild?

If only the P6 are getting guaranteed NIT bids what does it mean for "major" conferences like the WCC, AAC, MWC, A10? Do we conclude they aren't major anymore?

When talking about the WCC, AAC, MWC and A10, it is more about the programs and less about the leagues. For example, Memphis (yes, I'm biased) and Gonzaga, for example, are "major programs" by most metrics. But there are too many members in each of those leagues that are perceived as mid-major for some to, in general terms, justify being able to classify any one (or all four) of the WCC, AAC, MWC and A10 as "major" conferences.

When I talk with friends in Nashville (lots of Big Ten, SEC and ACC people here) regarding college basketball and who are a bit uncertain as to why I (and other knowledgeable folks) describe Big East men's hoops as "power," I put it in simple terms: Each of the 11 members of the BE is, at the minimum, a "major" program (for example, DePaul). Some are "high-major" programs, such as Marquette. And two are elite/blueblood-esque: Nova and UConn. This quality yields a "power" league in one sport for the BE.

The WCC, AAC, MWC and A10 — though all quality leagues and each with a few major to high-major programs — offers "bottom halves" that simply harm their images.

That is how I see it.

In the 90's it was more of a full spectrum of major conferences and there wasn't anything officially power aside from the ACC being considered the best conference.

(10-27-2023 03:42 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 03:17 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 02:37 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 02:35 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  I could be wrong about this, but this is what the NIT field would've looked like last season based on the NET rankings, but the use of an NIT committee could alter this. My list used was from the link below so hopefully they're correct (NET rankings after conference tourneys). * = Actual NIT Participants
https://bracketologists.com/

Autobids:
#40 Rutgers (B1G)*
#42 Oklahoma St. (B12)*
#44 North Carolina (ACC, declined)
#45 Oregon (PAC)*
#49 Ohio St. (B1G)
#62 Texas Tech (B12)
#67 Clemson (ACC)*
#71 Villanova (BE)*
#73 Florida (SEC)*
#74 Seton Hall (BE)*
#75 Virginia Tech (ACC, replaces UNC)*
#77 Colorado (PAC)*
#81 Vanderbilt (SEC)*

At-Large:
#33 North Texas*
#39 UAB*
#46 Liberty*
#57 Michigan*
#58 Utah Valley*
#63 Cincinnati*
#64 New Mexico*
#65 Yale*
#66 UCF*
#69 Sam Houston St.*
#70 Oklahoma
#72 Wisconsin*
#77 Dayton (declined)
#78 Bradley*
#79 Washington St.*
#80 Utah
#82 Toledo*
#83 Marshall
#84 BYU
#85 Hofstra*
#87 Santa Clara* (replaces Dayton)

First Four Out:
#89 Wake Forest
#90 Southern Miss*
#91 St. John's
#92 Nebraska

Remaining NIT Participants not Qualifying:
#102 UC Irvine*
#120 Eastern Washington*
#127 Youngstown St.*
#219 Morehead St.*
#245 Alcorn St.*

So this might actually help upper mid-majors. That's kind of what I expected. The net bids added to P5 schools would be less than the net bids subtracted from low major autobids.

On this one I totally agree.

NIT is saying they'll give the P6 at least 2 but then after that point they are cut off. That opens the door for upper mid majors.

The P6 is also soon to become the P5 so they will have only 10 guarantees.

Also incentivizes recruiting in the upper mid majors since they'll have an edge on low majors in making NCAAT or NIT.

Idk, I think the B1G and SEC might push for a 3rd bid each instead of dropping to 10 autobids. Maybe the ACC and B12 also ask for a 3rd as well since they'll all be 16-18 team conferences as opposed to 14-15 team conferences. Maybe they let it drop to 10, but I don't they will.

I agree - I would be surprised if they let the total power auto-bids drop down to 10.

I’m confused about the post that you’re responding to (not your own post): there’s nothing about the power conference bids being capped at the 2 auto-bids. In fact, the NCAA press release was clear that P6 leagues could receive additional at-large bids and host games.

(10-27-2023 03:48 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The P6 are not cut off after the first 12.

They are cutoff if the teams don't have merit.

They won't put a 150+ Net team in there.