Changes to NIT driven by major Big East/Big 12/Big Ten tournament

[BallBoy]

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/38794849/changes-postseason-nit-made-response-new-tournament

Gavitt was referring to a new tournament featuring the top 16 teams from the Big East, Big Ten and Big 12 that didn't make the NCAA tournament. The Messenger reported in September that Fox Sports is behind the event, which would be played at T-Mobile Arena in Las Vegas.

This tournament aligned to Fox sports is a great sign for their investment into the Big East. Also looks like it will be a great event to see in Vegas.

[brewcity77]

I don't see much of anyone having interest in the 16-team Vegas tournament. Half the coaches will probably be fired by the time it would happen (week between E8 & F4) and any players with NBA aspirations will skip it. I think they would be better served creating an in-season Champions League tournament if they truly want to have an idea that actually drives interest, viewership, and money.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I don't see much of anyone having interest in the 16-team Vegas tournament. Half the coaches will probably be fired by the time it would happen (week between E8 & F4) and any players with NBA aspirations will skip it. I think they would be better served creating an in-season Champions League tournament if they truly want to have an idea that actually drives interest, viewership, and money.

I keep seeing Paint Touches talk about this, but honestly I just don't see it. Between the holiday tournaments and the expanded conference seasons, I am not sure there is going to be much interest by the schools in playing in something like that, and I am not sure the networks would have much interest in paying for more content either.  Especially when they routinely just set up these types of match ups.

[Nukem2]

I keep seeing Paint Touches talk about this, but honestly I just don't see it. Between the holiday tournaments and the expanded conference seasons, I am not sure there is going to be much interest by the schools in playing in something like that, and I am not sure the networks would have much interest in paying for more content either.  Especially when they routinely just set up these types of match ups.

Yep, and where is the time to do it?

[brewcity77]

Yep, and where is the time to do it?

Non-con play. It would start the first week of the season and be wrapped up before January 1. CBBCL games would replace non-con games. The toughest part would be getting everyone the same number of games within the event. But if you guaranteed everyone got 9 games, it could certainly work out.

Here's the latest AE proposal: https://www.anonymouseagle.com/2023/6/10/23755701/mens-college-basketball-needs-a-champions-league

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Non-con play. It would start the first week of the season and be wrapped up before January 1. CBBCL games would replace non-con games. The toughest part would be getting everyone the same number of games within the event. But if you guaranteed everyone got 9 games, it could certainly work out.

Here's the latest AE proposal: https://www.anonymouseagle.com/2023/6/10/23755701/mens-college-basketball-needs-a-champions-league

I read this. I'm completely unconvinced that it would drive more revenue than the current system of holiday tournaments and various network controlled pre-season events.

[brewcity77]

I read this. I'm completely unconvinced that it would drive more revenue than the current system of holiday tournaments and various network controlled pre-season events.

I think it absolutely would, for the same reason the NCAA Tournament outdraws conference tournaments and the NIT, or why Champions League outdraws Copa del Rey or the FA Cup. The stakes would be bigger, the field would be more encompassing, and every league would have a stake in it. Fans can ignore 80% of the holiday tournaments that don't involve their team or their league, but this would involve all 32 leagues. It would also give stakes to the opening week by making games that would typically be throwaway games significant as those teams played to reach the group stage. It's the same reason the NBA is trying something similar, though this would be on a larger scale than the NBA's In-Season Tournament.

The topic comes up every year: why does the start of the NCAA season suck? Everyone is excited, but we get zero ranked vs ranked matchups on opening night? The best game is USC at K-State. You have to go to Friday until there's a game with two top-25 teams, and that's the only one in the entire first week of the season. They need better matchups to start the year and grab interest early, particularly on weeknights when the competition with football isn't there. This would solve that problem by giving early games actual stakes and forcing the best teams to actually play each other in the first 2 months of the season.

This year's Maui shows just how much something like this is needed. Maui is awesome because we get 1/3/5/9/11 and there's a real chance by the time it tips it could be 1/2/3. It's been talked about in the off-season because it is the best MTE field in the history of the sport. Imagine getting that every year, but better. A big part of the reason people don't pay attention to college basketball until after the New Year isn't just because of football, but because they are putting crap product on TV for most of November and December.

The current system of holiday tournaments and various network controlled pre-season events gives you too many crap matchups and not enough marquee ones. This would ensure the season starts with marquee matchups, and there would still be enough teams to fill all the worthwhile MTEs once you get past this field. I do think it needs some tweaking, but in terms of early season interest, this would blow the current format out of the water.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

But I think you are misunderstanding two things here.

First, is that better match-ups isn't going to necessarily mean better ratings. IMO college basketball fans by and large follow their programs. The fan that will watch games between two teams they are not aligned with is not a large demographic. It's the general fan that drives the ratings, and those fans aren't really going to care about other games until March Madness comes around. This isn't football, which has a different hold on the American public for a variety of reasons.  This is more like baseball.  And sure baseball has a great opening day, but after that is weeks of sparse crowds and television ratings.

Second, this is going to seem like a contrived tournament to most people. March Madness works because of the tradition - filling out the brackets, crazy endings, the one-and-done nature of it all.  IMO you can't just say "hey let's do this in the fall too."  All these teams will keep on playing for dozens of additional games AND still have the "real championship" at the end.  The Champions League works in Europe because it has sixty years of history behind it. I don't think you can say "that works there so it would work here too."

All and all I think there is too much worry about the start of the NCAA basketball season.  The NBA season starts in a similar manner.  Both of their seasons don't initially draw much interest, but motor along fine, picking up momentum along the way and then both have their time in the spotlight at the end. And that's OK.

[Dr. Blackheart]

But I think you are misunderstanding two things here.

First, is that better match-ups isn't going to necessarily mean better ratings. IMO college basketball fans by and large follow their programs. The fan that will watch games between two teams they are not aligned with is not a large demographic. It's the general fan that drives the ratings, and those fans aren't really going to care about other games until March Madness comes around. This isn't football, which has a different hold on the American public for a variety of reasons.  This is more like baseball.  And sure baseball has a great opening day, but after that is weeks of sparse crowds and television ratings.

Second, this is going to seem like a contrived tournament to most people. March Madness works because of the tradition - filling out the brackets, crazy endings, the one-and-done nature of it all.  IMO you can't just say "hey let's do this in the fall too."  All these teams will keep on playing for dozens of additional games AND still have the "real championship" at the end.  The Champions League works in Europe because it has sixty years of history behind it. I don't think you can say "that works there so it would work here too."

All and all I think there is too much worry about the start of the NCAA basketball season.  The NBA season starts in a similar manner.  Both of their seasons don't initially draw much interest, but motor along fine, picking up momentum along the way and then both have their time in the spotlight at the end. And that's OK.

Bingo. This has a made for TV roller derby feel too it. Too much corporate control at the expense of the booster fan will kill the golden goose.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Bingo. This has a made for TV roller derby feel too it. Too much corporate control at the expense of the booster fan will kill the golden goose.

I feel similar about the "NBA Cup" that they are introducing this year. Introducing elements of European soccer just because they work over there doesn't mean they will work here.

[brewcity77]

But I think you are misunderstanding two things here.

First, is that better match-ups isn't going to necessarily mean better ratings. IMO college basketball fans by and large follow their programs. The fan that will watch games between two teams they are not aligned with is not a large demographic. It's the general fan that drives the ratings, and those fans aren't really going to care about other games until March Madness comes around. This isn't football, which has a different hold on the American public for a variety of reasons.  This is more like baseball.  And sure baseball has a great opening day, but after that is weeks of sparse crowds and television ratings.

More fans will watch Duke vs Kentucky than Winthrop vs Northern Kentucky. And meaningful games drive more ratings. Why do the small conferences get their best ratings during Championship Week? Because it has meaning. Creating an event with bigger matchups that have meaning is going to drive more ratings in the same way the Champions Classic, Gavitt Games, B10/ACC Challenge, and other events get bigger ratings than St. Joseph's vs Lafayette. That's not rocket science, and it's not really debatable.

Second, this is going to seem like a contrived tournament to most people. March Madness works because of the tradition - filling out the brackets, crazy endings, the one-and-done nature of it all.  IMO you can't just say "hey let's do this in the fall too."  All these teams will keep on playing for dozens of additional games AND still have the "real championship" at the end.  The Champions League works in Europe because it has sixty years of history behind it. I don't think you can say "that works there so it would work here too."

How do traditions start? By doing it once. What might seem contrived to some today would seem less so in a decade. And when there are meaningful games every weekend in November and December and that's been the case for 10, 20, 30 years, it will grow in importance and meaning. Sure, you'll have some old whiners who say "I liked Warriors better and this new tournament is dumb" but eventually fans will accept reality. The NCAA Tournament as we know it grew over 80 years from an 8-team event to what it is today. It's beloved because it was allowed to do that. Shooting down an idea because it won't be fully formed tomorrow and trying to compare it with events that have been going on for decades ignores the simple reality that you need to start something before it can be around for decades. It's myopic and fails to understand how traditions are formed in the first place.

All and all I think there is too much worry about the start of the NCAA basketball season.  The NBA season starts in a similar manner.  Both of their seasons don't initially draw much interest, but motor along fine, picking up momentum along the way and then both have their time in the spotlight at the end. And that's OK.

I've never been a fan of the "change might not work perfectly so let's not bother trying" mentality. Things don't get better by staying the same, they get better by taking risks and innovating. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, but the only way to insure things don't improve is to actively avoid opportunities for improvement.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I'm certainly not saying they shouldn't try. I have said that I am "unconvinced it would drive more revenue" and gave the reasons why. You are right - it might work. I just don't think it will. 

This is very similar to the conversations around the expanded football playoff.  Until ESPN showed that they could maximize revenue by ditching the bowl system, there was no reason to.  But I think media companies like Fox and ESPN, between the various "tip off classics" and holiday tournaments, probably believe they are squeezing out enough ratings at this point in the calendar.  Hell, Dick Vitale, ESPN's most recognized college basketball personality, has been arguing for change at the beginning of the season for years, yet ESPN seems unmoved by it all.

[Scoop Snoop]

Gonzaga's matchups early in the season with major teams supports Brew's take. I admire Few for his vision of showcasing a once virtually unknown team and launching them into the national spotlight. While it is only one team + high level opponents, it has worked very well on a small scale.

[Coleman]

Non-con play. It would start the first week of the season and be wrapped up before January 1. CBBCL games would replace non-con games. The toughest part would be getting everyone the same number of games within the event. But if you guaranteed everyone got 9 games, it could certainly work out.

Here's the latest AE proposal: https://www.anonymouseagle.com/2023/6/10/23755701/mens-college-basketball-needs-a-champions-league

This sounds awful. Confusing, and no idea when you'd have time for it during the current schedule (maybe if you started the season in mid October or something), and decimates the freedom of scheduling your non-conference the way you like. This may work for soccer, but it just doesn't work for college basketball.

Events like this year's Maui Invitational actually show you don't need something like this. There are LOTS of great non-conference matchups against highly ranked teams.

I just don't see the appeal.

[Coleman]

Most importantly, a Champions league based off last season's results have zero guarantee that the best teams will actually be participating. Players come and go every single year. A conference champion one year may be in the bottom half the next. It isn't like pro sports.

[muwarrior69]

More fans will watch Duke vs Kentucky than Winthrop vs Northern Kentucky. And meaningful games drive more ratings. Why do the small conferences get their best ratings during Championship Week? Because it has meaning. Creating an event with bigger matchups that have meaning is going to drive more ratings in the same way the Champions Classic, Gavitt Games, B10/ACC Challenge, and other events get bigger ratings than St. Joseph's vs Lafayette. That's not rocket science, and it's not really debatable.

How do traditions start? By doing it once. What might seem contrived to some today would seem less so in a decade. And when there are meaningful games every weekend in November and December and that's been the case for 10, 20, 30 years, it will grow in importance and meaning. Sure, you'll have some old whiners who say "I liked Warriors better and this new tournament is dumb" but eventually fans will accept reality. The NCAA Tournament as we know it grew over 80 years from an 8-team event to what it is today. It's beloved because it was allowed to do that. Shooting down an idea because it won't be fully formed tomorrow and trying to compare it with events that have been going on for decades ignores the simple reality that you need to start something before it can be around for decades. It's myopic and fails to understand how traditions are formed in the first place.

I've never been a fan of the "change might not work perfectly so let's not bother trying" mentality. Things don't get better by staying the same, they get better by taking risks and innovating. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, but the only way to insure things don't improve is to actively avoid opportunities for improvement.

We Warriors have never been whiners. Al gave a big middle finger to the NCAA and went the traditional route winning the NIT in 1970 and from where I sit it paid big dividends leading to the Warriors Natty in '77. I don't oppose change as long as it respects traditions. The UW/Marquette rivalry is meaningful to basketball fans in Wisconsin even if both teams suck, of course more fun when both are winners. I am sure the Marquette/Notre Dame game will be a sell out or close to it, even though Notre will suck this season; because for us it has meaning. Rating are not everything.

[brewcity77]

This sounds awful. Confusing, and no idea when you'd have time for it during the current schedule (maybe if you started the season in mid October or something), and decimates the freedom of scheduling your non-conference the way you like. This may work for soccer, but it just doesn't work for college basketball.

Events like this year's Maui Invitational actually show you don't need something like this. There are LOTS of great non-conference matchups against highly ranked teams.

I just don't see the appeal.

This year's Maui actually shows that they DO need something like this because this year's Maui is the best MTE field in the roughly 40 year history of MTEs. It took us decades to get a field this good and no field in MTE history has been close to this Maui.

And as good as Maui is, as good as the PK80 and PK85 were, they wouldn't come close to what an annual CBBCL would provide. It would blow the doors off any MTE in history, including this year's Maui. You look at how great Maui is but you can't see the appeal of something that would be unquestionably better on an annual basis, not once every forty years?

[The Equalizer]

This year's Maui actually shows that they DO need something like this because this year's Maui is the best MTE field in the roughly 40 year history of MTEs. It took us decades to get a field this good and no field in MTE history has been close to this Maui.

And as good as Maui is, as good as the PK80 and PK85 were, they wouldn't come close to what an annual CBBCL would provide. It would blow the doors off any MTE in history, including this year's Maui. You look at how great Maui is but you can't see the appeal of something that would be unquestionably better on an annual basis, not once every forty years?

Maui is great this year because it offers the possibility of bunch of top 10 ranked teams each getting 2 or 3 games against other top 10 ranked teams. 

In the proposed tournament, if you're lucky, by the time you get to the final round, you'll have 8 teams that might come close to what Maui offers this year.  But that assumes no upsets--and as we see from the NCAA tournament, upsets are common. Chances are good that a marquee team or three are no longer around and you don't see those matchups. 

Also, there seems to be an assumption that people aren't paying attention to college hoops in December because the matchups aren't compelling.  I might offer that most people in the world have other things going on in December, and don't have time for college hoops regardless of the quality of the matchup.  There's this thing called Christmas that people are getting ready for.

[brewcity77]

Yes, because people stop watching TV in December because of Christmas. That has to be the funniest ridiculous Scoop Take ever.

[The Equalizer]

Yes, because people stop watching TV in December because of Christmas. That has to be the funniest ridiculous Scoop Take ever.

It's actually funnier and more ridiculous how out of touch with reality you are that you don't notice that normal people spend more time in December on Christmas shopping, holiday travel, preparing for houseguests, studying for finals, salespeople trying to make their year-end quota, attending holiday parties for your company neighborhood, spouse's company, etc., and all the other things that happen to most normal people between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

[Hards Alumni]

It's actually funnier and more ridiculous how out of touch with reality you are that you don't notice that normal people spend more time in December on Christmas shopping, holiday travel, preparing for houseguests, studying for finals, salespeople trying to make their year-end quota, attending holiday parties for your company neighborhood, spouse's company, etc., and all the other things that happen to most normal people between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Oh man, you are about to get dunked on so hard.  You probably should have checked TV ratings during the holiday season.

Also, this ain't 1980

[Carl]

It's actually funnier and more ridiculous how out of touch with reality you are that you don't notice that normal people spend more time in December on Christmas shopping, holiday travel, preparing for houseguests, studying for finals, salespeople trying to make their year-end quota, attending holiday parties for your company neighborhood, spouse's company, etc., and all the other things that happen to most normal people between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Casual reader here. I know there's some intelligent posters here but it's sometimes hard to identify who knows what they are talking about. Post's like these help the sorting process

[panda]

Die hard college fans would be interested, but the majority start watching college hoops after the Super Bowl. I don't see the ncaa's motivation to create a tournament which competes with ncaa football post season viewership either.

[brewcity77]

Die hard college fans would be interested, but the majority start watching college hoops after the Super Bowl. I don't see the ncaa's motivation to create a tournament which competes with ncaa football post season viewership either.

I firmly because one of the main reasons fans don't tune in is because the schedule sucks. Zero ranked vs ranked matchups yesterday. Only a handful of high-major vs high-major games. Run big time games during the week and it will give people a reason to tune in. And if it doesn't work, what do they lose by trying to put bigger matchups together earlier? I don't see how anyone could argue the sport benefits from watching top-25 teams drill cupcakes by 20+ on repeat.

[BallBoy]

Non-con play. It would start the first week of the season and be wrapped up before January 1. CBBCL games would replace non-con games. The toughest part would be getting everyone the same number of games within the event. But if you guaranteed everyone got 9 games, it could certainly work out.

Here's the latest AE proposal: https://www.anonymouseagle.com/2023/6/10/23755701/mens-college-basketball-needs-a-champions-league

I read this and am thankful they don't have it.  I am a huge Real fan and watch deep into the UCL every year. This would completely replace all preseason tournaments and the non-conference schedule to get the equivalent of the NCAA tournament that is played 3 months later. Instead of the one and done format we have a complicated group stage to lead to a knock out stage of sweet sixteens. In order for this to work you would need 10 of these running concurrently so each team can play equal number of games. If you want to add more from one conference then you end up with fewer concurrent tournaments but still a scheduling nightmare as lower leagues would need to play the equivalent of the Europa League. Scheduling which can't happen until the end of the season. 

There are over 350 teams in NCAA. Unlike the UCL, those teams need to play an equal number of games. If you aren't good you just don't get to play in UCL. It is additive to league play and is the NCAA tournament played out over 6 months.

Next most UCL teams remain relatively intact year-over-year except during certain transfer windows. With graduation, transfers and the draft, entire starting line ups could turn over. The mid-majors with senior teams go from being Cinderella to doormats.

Those mid-majors also can't get rewarded for scheduling a challenging schedule as they might not play in the top tier UCL because of how they did the year before.

Outside of scheduling and overall fairness, it cannibalizes revenue from already popular tournaments like Maui, Atlantis, which get most their money from TV rights.