Jump to content



UAlbany Athletics- America East-
SOCIAL MEDIA: UAlbany Facebook- UAlbany Instagram- UAlbany Twitter- UAlbany Blog-
MEDIA: Albany Student Press- America East TV- ESPN3- Schenectady Gazette- The Team 104.5 ESPN Radio- The Team 104.5 ESPN Radio Archive interviews- Times Union College Sports- Times Union Sports- WCDB- WOFX 980-
FALL SPORTS LINKS: CAA Football-
WINTER SPORTS LINKS: College Insider- Pomeroy Ratings- Real TimeRPI-
SPRING SPORTS LINKS: Inside Lacrosse- Lax Power Backup Stick-
OTHER FORUMS: America East Forum- Any Given Saturday Forum- Championship Subdivision forum(1-AA Discussion) The Hen House - Siena Forum- Stony Brook Forum- Vermont Forum

College Basketball Invitational


Recommended Posts

Anyone hear of the "College Basketball Invitational," which is apparently a new post-season tournament for College Basketball? I came across a reference to the tournament by reading the America Least Blog. Below are links to the CBI webpage and its bracket.

 

http://www.gazellegroup.com/cbi/index_main.htm

 

Bracket: http://www.gazellegroup.com/cbi/cbi_bracket08.pdf

 

What is neat about the 16-team tournament is that the championship game is actually a series, with the winner having to win 2 out of 3 games to take the title!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually like the additional tournament. Hey, why not? As long as fans of those schools go to the games, those games generate revenue for the schools and keep fans interested. Moreover, the players get at least one additional game to play, maybe even several. If nothing else, the games serve as more experience building for the younger players who get to face solid competition from schools of other conferences. And one team will get some more hardware to put in their display case.

 

Finally, I don't think the teams in the CBI tournament are anything to be ashamed of. Yes, they are not NCAA worthy. But with the NIT giving automatic bids to league champions, making the NIT has now become more difficult for many solid, yet middle-of-the-road teams. Indeed, here are the 16 teams in the CBI Tournament (note that the teams are grouped below with their first-round opponent), and note that many are not from "small conferences" (i.e., Rider from the MAAC):

 

Washington [RPI #121, 16-16, PAC-10]

Valparaiso [RPI #97, 19-13, Horizon League]

 

Nevada [RPI #75, 20-11, WAC]

Houston [RPI #80, 22-9, Conference USA]

 

Virginia [RPI #127, 15-15, ACC]

Richmond [RPI #120, 16-14, Atlantic 10]

 

Old Dominion [RPI #128, 17-15, Colonial Athletic Conference]

Rider [RPI #110, 23-10, MAAC]

 

UTEP [RPI #104, 19-13, Conference USA]

Utah [RPI #96, 16-14, Mountain West Conference]

 

Tulsa [RPI #93, 20-13, Conference USA]

Miami (Ohio) [RPI #74, 17-15, MAC]

 

Bradley [RPI #105, 17-15, Missouri Valley Conference]

Cincinnati [RPI #117, 13-18, Big East Conference]

 

Ohio [RPI #86, 19-12, MAC]

Brown [RPI #107, 19-9, Ivy League]

 

Having not made the NCAA or NIT Tournament, I know that I, as a UAlbany fan, would love to have at least one more game to watch, especially if it were a home game in a first-round matchup against a mid-major or power conference foe that didn't make the other two tournaments (i.e., Cincinnati, Washington).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don't disagree with you about playing/watching another UA game if we were somehow offered to participate. I'm a bit skeptical of the underlying reason for a THIRD post season tourney. On the face of it, I can see why a third post season tourney would be a no biggy.....at least in the immediate future but where are they going with all of this?

 

My fear, and at this point it may be unfounded is that they are caving to the BCS conference teams crying a river about being left out. Thus they are trying to marginalize the mids! Again, might be unfounded but one only has to listen to the talking heads on the four letter network among others to see that there are some pressure to grant tickets to teams simply because they play in a BCS conference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that peaks my curiosity is how the CBI officials go about making invitations. Obviously, solid teams left out of the NCAA and NIT are invited. All of the teams in the CBI Tournament have RPIs ranging from 75 to 128. But there are teams in that range that were arguably left out of the CBI. Perhaps some of those schools declined?

 

With all 3 tournaments, we still only have roughly 1/3 of the division I teams participating in post-season play, which isn't bad.

 

65 (NCAA)

32 (NIT)

16 (CBI)

------------

113

 

 

If nothing else, most of the games are being televised on the Fox Sports Television Channels (channels 183-185 for Mid Hudson Cable; in the 600s or so for Time Warner, I think), so it would give UAlbany, or any other school seeking national exposure, yet another opportunity to be on national TV, even if that TV channel is available to digital cable subscribers only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don't disagree with you about playing/watching another UA game if we were somehow offered to participate. I'm a bit skeptical of the underlying reason for a THIRD post season tourney. On the face of it, I can see why a third post season tourney would be a no biggy.....at least in the immediate future but where are they going with all of this?

 

My fear, and at this point it may be unfounded is that they are caving to the BCS conference teams crying a river about being left out. Thus they are trying to marginalize the mids! Again, might be unfounded but one only has to listen to the talking heads on the four letter network among others to see that there are some pressure to grant tickets to teams simply because they play in a BCS conference.

 

Maybe I'm being skeptical too, but my guess is the principal reason for a third tournament is:

$$$$$ B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At quick glance, looks like Georgia Tech (#67 RPI, and 8 wins in the ACC conference play, 15-17 overall), Wright State (#85 RPI, with a 21-10 record), and Texas Tech (#69 RPI, 15-15 overall) are three teams that got snubbed from all post-season play and the NIT, but they are teams that clearly appear to qualifty for the CBI (and even arguably the NIT). I wonder why these teams weren't selected for the NIT but especially the CBI? Perhaps, maybe they don't care about the CBI (and if that were the reason, how would the fans, or even more so, the players feel?), but I just wonder why those teams didn't get selected for the CBI. Or maybe they did but they declined to participate?

 

And also, what about IUPUI (Summit League)? IUPUI has a RPI of #71, with a 23-7 record. IUPUI beat UMASS (one of the better teams in the NIT), and played Marquette strong in the early season, despite losing by about 10 points.

 

Just curious ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I try not to be the pesimistic one, I really just see this as a way to placate and favor the major conference/BCS schools, as that's where most of the $$ comes from..for both the schools and the networks. And they throw a couple mids/lows in to keep them from complaining too loud.

 

Right after the NCAA brackets were announced on CBS, ESPN interviewed the VA Tech coach, who was understandably disappointed about not getting an at-large bid. His response was that the tournament should be expanded to 128 teams so that 'solid' teams could get in.

 

Bobby Knight agreed, of course, saying that so many teams 'only get in cause they won their conference tournament' (mainly mids and lows). He said the tournament should be expanded to 128 with the 'bottom' 64 playing the 'first round' game at the home campuses of the 'top' 64 teams.

 

Regardless of the fact that you have conferences exactly for the reason of tournament champs, this expanded NCAA tournament would just give more 18-12, 9-7 BCS schools bids to play in the post-season..again with just a few mids/lows thrown in to keep them from complaining too loud. And how many mids/lows would get a home game in this scenario??..maybe half a dozen? The home court advantage for the BCS schools in the first round would just give them more opportunity to keep the mids/lows out of the round of 64.

 

It's really an arrogance that I hope Drake or Butler can chip into like George Mason did a few years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To refer to Boisy's point about the CBI perhaps marginalizing the mid-major schools, I'm not sure how the CBI does anything negative for the mid-major programs because only 3 teams out of the 16 in the CBI are from the traditional power conferences -- i.e., Washington, Cincinnati, and Virginia (PAC 10, Big East, and ACC). The rest of the teams are from mid-major conferences (along with smaller-conference schools, the Summit and MAAC leagues).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm being skeptical too, but my guess is the principal reason for a third tournament is:

$$$$$ B)

Of course. That's why all the games are on campus - no travel costs for half the teams, and at least some profit from ticket sales (if the NCAA doesn't take everything).

 

So many of these teams from top conferences complain about playing a 'meaningless' NIT game, at least they get to go to NYC. How much are they going to like playing possibly three games while spending five days in Peoria or Cincinnati?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GODANESGO is absolutely right IMO. Creating yet another tourney would give the NCAA the opportunity to relegate more mids and lows to the "other" tourneys while freeing up spots for the mediocre BCS schools.

 

UA,

 

No one is arguing that they wouldn't want to see their team continue to play but at what expense? Continuing to water down the NCAA post season play by creating yet another tourney. If they wanted more teams to play in the post season, why did they reduce the NIT field a few years ago?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GODANESGO is absolutely right IMO. Creating yet another tourney would give the NCAA the opportunity to relegate more mids and lows to the "other" tourneys while freeing up spots for the mediocre BCS schools.

 

UA,

 

No one is arguing that they wouldn't want to see their team continue to play but at what expense? Continuing to water down the NCAA post season play by creating yet another tourney. If they wanted more teams to play in the post season, why did they reduce the NIT field a few years ago?

 

 

I think the NCAA does the best job it can with selecting the best 34 at-large teams. The problem that I have with the argument you present is that it assumes that, for example, when it comes down to selecting the 34th at-large slot in the NCAA Tournament, and selection for that slot is between a mid major team and a power conference team who are about equal in the eyes of most fans, etc., then the NCAA Selection Comm. factors in the teams' status as a "mid-major" or not and opts to select the power conference team for that last NCAA slot simply because that team is from a power conference. I think that would be absurd. If that power conference team is selected, then I feel that NCAA people have a bona fide reason for making that choice, and that choice comes from SOS, RPI #, quality wins, or otherwise -- and not it's status as either a mid-major team or power-conference team.

 

I believe that mid-major's can absolutely compete with the power conference schools, for the most part, yet they are mid-majors for a reason, and I have no problem with the NCAA picking the 34 best at large teams, even if 28 of those are from power conferences, which has been the case the past few tournaments (including 2008).

 

Let me know if I don't understand the argument you present correctly or where my analysis is skewed. It's an interesting topic, especially this time of year!

 

Of course, where your argument, Boisy, is the strongest, and where you may be right is when you look at the genesis of the above statistics often used -- SOS, RPI, etc. Where do those numbers come from? They are not absolute scientific values; rather, the find their creation with human polls and opinion! So, there is where a team's status as a mid-major hurts a school. Because they are perceived as a mid-major, their rankings in various categories can hurt them. In other words, and I hope that I'm making this point somewhat clear, is that teams do not have ascribed rankings or RPI values. Those values have to come from human beings and their polls and other such subjective measures (although rankings, such as the BCS in football, are not entirely subjective).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NIT is only mildly interesting. Other than fans of a particular school issued an invitation, I suspect the CBI to be of really minimal interest.

 

What surprises me is that the NCAA has not expanded from 65 to 68 teams. The Tuesday play-in game gets a national TV audience. They could easily schedule 4 regional play-in games - two Monday, two Tuesday and increase the interest 3 fold. Each of the play-in game winners would become the 16 seeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NIT is only mildly interesting. Other than fans of a particular school issued an invitation, I suspect the CBI to be of really minimal interest.

 

What surprises me is that the NCAA has not expanded from 65 to 68 teams. The Tuesday play-in game gets a national TV audience. They could easily schedule 4 regional play-in games - two Monday, two Tuesday and increase the interest 3 fold. Each of the play-in game winners would become the 16 seeds.

 

 

That's true about the mild interest (except for the hoops junkies like myself). Good point about having 68 teams, although the extra teams playing play-in games wouldn't be the Arizona State, Va. Tech., and UMASS type schools who just missed making the NCAA Tournament -- it would be the Conference champions from the small conference schools (or if there was an upset from a marginal team in a mid-major or small conference (i.e., Stonybrook wins the America East Tournament)). Teams like Arizona State, this year, compete for the final #11 and #12 slots, not the #16 slots, so expanding the play-in games could potentially hurt Conference champions from even leagues like the MAAC or America East (in a weak year or in a year where a #4-#9 seed, let's say, wins the, e.g., America East Tournament).

 

To illustrate this point, assume UAlbany won the America East Tournament this year. I predict that because of our low RPI and SOS, we might have gotten a #16 seed (UMBC, who has a much higher RPI than us (#88), only got a #15 seed). In such a scenario, though we would have tied for second place in our league and won the Conference Tournament, we potentially would have had to play one of the play-in games just so that we can get to a Thursday or Friday first-round game. That would suck.

 

Said differently, the additional teams playing the play-in games would not be bubble teams -- they would be the teams from smaller conferences who already earned automatic bids! Make the bubble teams play the play-in games, not the automatic qualifiers; however, that is not how it works because the bubble teams compete for the 34 at-large bids.

 

My vote would be that if we expand, expand to 128 per Coach Knight's suggestion, and not to expand the play-in games because they could very well hurt the America East down the road (and other mid major and/or small conference schools).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...