Teams opting out of NIT . . .

[panchosanchez99]

On 3/17/2024 at 8:57 PM, ClassOf2005Bull said:

I think some people are missing the point of NIT declines. 

1. With how the transfer portal works now, it actually can be beneficial to decline the invite b/c you get a jump on the teams in the tournament and if the goal is to make the tournament, then you need to upgrade where needed. It's not always about the team declining due to "sour grapes."

2. Everyone **** on UNC last year saying they were "arrogant" for declining, but it gave them a jump on the portal and look at them this season. Are we UNC? Absolutely not, but it doesn't mean we can just overlook any competitive advantage we can get for next season. If it means opting out of a secondary tournament that generates little interest, then so be it. 

3. At the end of the day, all the "good sports" can argue "it's more games," "It's a chance to compete", etc. The tournament is looked on as a JV trophy and most guys at this level don't really get "amped up" to play for a JV trophy and save the "The best way to show them we deserved to be in it, is to go win the NIT." Cause those who have the power to make those determinations don't care and aren't thinking "You know, USF really proved us wrong by going and winning that tournament." 

Support the team no matter what, but let's not act like if we play or don't play that the NIT is going to have much of an impact, if any, on next season. This isn't thirty years ago, it's a new era in college sports, whether we like it or not and championships matter to these kids. Not consolation games.

See my post "WBB Transfer Portal." Your reason may be why WBB declined.

[Doc]

28 minutes ago, BULLSHTR said:

Net rankings of opt-outs:

32 St. John's
40 Pitt
46 Oklahoma
69 Washington
75 Memphis

 

These teams that opted out were never getting invites to the NIT (hilarious that they declined an invite that was never coming)

82 Maryland
84 Syracuse
87 St. Bonaventure
88 USC
90 Ole Miss
96 Florida State
98 Indiana
107 UCLA
113 Stanford
128 California
134 Arizona State
165 Oregon State

It looks like the entire PAC opted out below Utah. That explains why they only had one team in, instead of that guaranteed second host. All the way down to #165 Oregon St could have hosted if they wanted to.

 

I believe Mississippi also would have been a host but instead let it pass to Georgia. 

[Cat941]

SEC's NCAA flop makes Greg Sankey's push for tournament expansion look even more ridiculous

SPORTS.YAHOO.COM

---

The SEC commissioner wants more power conference teams in the tournament and doesn't seem to care what that means for the little guy. The problem is that those...

That is thinly veiled corporate speak for the SEC needs more NCAA tournament teams so that it can make more money. And that Sankey is willing to create more access for the SEC and other power conferences at the expense of the tiny schools that make the NCAA tournament an annual can’t-miss spectacle. Between Sankey’s comments and surprise changes to the format of the NIT last October, there is palpable anxiety that this could be one of the last years that the NCAA tournament bracket looks how we’ve come to know it. 

Edited March 23 by Cat941
ETA

[Gat-Rat Bull]

33 minutes ago, Cat941 said:

SEC's NCAA flop makes Greg Sankey's push for tournament expansion look even more ridiculous

SPORTS.YAHOO.COM

---

The SEC commissioner wants more power conference teams in the tournament and doesn't seem to care what that means for the little guy. The problem is that those...

That is thinly veiled corporate speak for the SEC needs more NCAA tournament teams so that it can make more money. And that Sankey is willing to create more access for the SEC and other power conferences at the expense of the tiny schools that make the NCAA tournament an annual can’t-miss spectacle. Between Sankey’s comments and surprise changes to the format of the NIT last October, there is palpable anxiety that this could be one of the last years that the NCAA tournament bracket looks how we’ve come to know it. 

In their attempt to squeeze more and more out of it, these conferences are going to whip the golden goose to death.

[Fold FB Invest in BB]

Capitalists complaining about capitalism is funny. If you think a first round matchup of Kentucky vs Oklahoma wouldn’t draw more eyeballs and drive more revenue than Kentucky vs Oakland, you are mistaken. Would it be as fun for me personally to watch? Definitely not, but I wouldn’t not watch it and neither would you.

[Triple B]

54 minutes ago, Cat941 said:

SEC's NCAA flop makes Greg Sankey's push for tournament expansion look even more ridiculous

SPORTS.YAHOO.COM

---

The SEC commissioner wants more power conference teams in the tournament and doesn't seem to care what that means for the little guy. The problem is that those...

That is thinly veiled corporate speak for the SEC needs more NCAA tournament teams so that it can make more money. And that Sankey is willing to create more access for the SEC and other power conferences at the expense of the tiny schools that make the NCAA tournament an annual can’t-miss spectacle. Between Sankey’s comments and surprise changes to the format of the NIT last October, there is palpable anxiety that this could be one of the last years that the NCAA tournament bracket looks how we’ve come to know it. 

Exactly what i was worried about when they pulled that ******** in the NIT ... expand to get more Prince Charmings instead of more Cinderellas.

[Triple B]

2 hours ago, Fold FB Invest in BB said:

Capitalists complaining about capitalism is funny. If you think a first round matchup of Kentucky vs Oklahoma wouldn’t draw more eyeballs and drive more revenue than Kentucky vs Oakland, you are mistaken. Would it be as fun for me personally to watch? Definitely not, but I wouldn’t not watch it and neither would you.

Kentucky vs Oakland is what makes March Madness March Madness and I'm not so sure a first round UK vs OU draws that many more eyeballs. Maybe I'm different than most but when I'm bouncing around first weekend games for viewing, I pretty much always stop on the David vs Goliaths more than the heavyweight bouts ...

Edited March 23 by Triple B

[Cat941]

3 minutes ago, Triple B said:

Kentucky vs Oakland is what makes March Madness March Madness and I'm not so sure a first round UK vs OU draws that many more eyeballs. Maybe I'm different than most but when I'm bouncing around first weekend games for viewing, I pretty much always stop on the David vs Goliaths than the heavyweight bouts ...

Me too.  I enjoy watching the matchups in the tourney that we wouldn't get to see otherwise.  The haves often won't play the have-nots.  And isn't UK versus OU going to be an upcoming in-conference game for the SEC?  

[OhioBull]

19 minutes ago, Triple B said:

Kentucky vs Oakland is what makes March Madness March Madness and I'm not so sure a first round UK vs OU draws that many more eyeballs. Maybe I'm different than most but when I'm bouncing around first weekend games for viewing, I pretty much always stop on the David vs Goliaths than the heavyweight bouts ...

100% agree. I’m the same way. I want to see the big upset. I can’t stand the entitlement of some of these programs. Makes me sick to my stomach.

[Gat-Rat Bull]

22 minutes ago, Triple B said:

Kentucky vs Oakland is what makes March Madness March Madness and I'm not so sure a first round UK vs OU draws that many more eyeballs. Maybe I'm different than most but when I'm bouncing around first weekend games for viewing, I pretty much always stop on the David vs Goliaths than the heavyweight bouts ...

I agree. The fact that every small and mid-major D1 school can dream of a Cinderella run in a sport that only needs 4 or 5 great players to win it all is what makes this tournament so amazing from a fan and money-making perspective.