If this is your first visit, feel free to
check out the Frequently Asked Questions by clicking this
LINK.
You are welcome as a guest, but you will have to REGISTER
before you can post messages.
To register, click the link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions.
If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.
Whoa...I thought you and a couple others here have said these eieio tournaments do not have any meaning, and that wins compiled in these meaningless postseason tournaments shouldn't even be counted.
There was cheering when Bradley turned down the CBI and CIT (both invited BU), and now Missouri State wins the CIT. Hey, does everyone realize that MSU finished 7th in the MVC, 8-10 in conference, and behind Bradley and Indiana State?
If Bradley had played, and gotten 4 home games in a row, they probably would have won the CIT, and would have finished 20-15! And people here would be downgrading the accomplishment!
I've said it before and I'll say it again. These are two very decent tournaments. While they may not have the distinction of being the true "best of the rest" tournament like the NIT is, a great majority of the participants in both tourneys had 20+ wins coming into these tournaments. And both tourneys are full of solid mid-major teams that given the chance may have had a good shot of winning a game or two in the NCAA Tournament, especially considering Ohio University routed Georgetown with a worse record than over 20 of these teams!
I also do agree if a team chooses to decline an invitation to these tourneys if they do not feel that they fulfilled their yearly goals, but at the same time I certainly would have followed Bradley if they chose to participate again.
Hopefully both of these tourneys stick around awhile, especially if the NCAA discontinues the NIT to make way for NCAA Tournament expansion. And even if this doesn't happen, I see at least one if not both of these tourneys around for the long haul.
For the record, I agree. The fans at MSU have been deprived of postseason play for a while, including a couple years when they deserved to be in the NCAA tournament. Great to see them win the CIT, even if there will be some who question why they got home court advantage for every game.
For the record, I agree. The fans at MSU have been deprived of postseason play for a while, including a couple years when they deserved to be in the NCAA tournament. Great to see them win the CIT, even if there will be some who question why they got home court advantage for every game.
Shouldn't be much question why because we were a #1 seed and #3 overall in the tournament...was told we got that based on RPI and non-con record per our AD. Based on the numbers the only road trips we were going to make were to S. Mississippi or Marshall but both lost.
Regardless of the name of the tournament it is a step in the right direction for our program.
I think they do consider attendance, and of course, which team puts up the financial guarantee.
Bradley was a home team for all 4 games last year, and they were open about the reason being Bradley's ability to sell tickets, not RPI.
Here are the RPIs of the 16 team field, and MSU was the 5th highest, so if it was based on RPI, MSU wouldn't have been a #1 seed.
67-Marshall
78-Louisiana Tech
79-Portland
81-Fairfield
90-Missouri State
100-Harvard
101-Appalachian State
113-Southern Miss.
115-Creighton
118-Northern Colorado
122-Western Carolina
128-Pacific
158-George Mason
175-Loyola Marymount
177-Middle Tennessee
216-South Dakota
I have never seen anything about the CIT using RPI or seeding teams based on any criteria.
First I said RPI and non-con...not just RPI
Second I got that info directly from our AD who is a pretty good source. We were a #1 seed and #3 overall based on our RPI and our 13-1 non-con record....just saying they didn't really look at our overall conference record and 7th place finish in the Valley.
Zo is on the local radio show and just said the only road games we were going to play was @ Marshall or @ S. Mississippi. He said in a way he wished they would have won so we would have had to play a road game.
Second I got that info directly from our AD who is a pretty good source. We were a #1 seed and #3 overall based on our RPI and our 13-1 non-con record....just saying they didn't really look at our overall conference record and 7th place finish in the Valley.
Zo is on the local radio show and just said the only road games we were going to play was @ Marshall or @ S. Mississippi. He said in a way he wished they would have won so we would have had to play a road game.
Interesting. It seems like there is a little different interpretation of the selection criteria between the CIT selection committee and your AD TNMSUFAN. It would be interesting to see who's right, but I believe attendance is the number one factor in this decision. And since the Valley is the "ACC" of the CIT, it doesn't surprise me that a Valley team was awarded all home games for the second year in a row!
Interesting. It seems like there is a little different interpretation of the selection criteria between the CIT selection committee and your AD TNMSUFAN. It would be interesting to see who's right, but I believe attendance is the number one factor in this decision. And since the Valley is the "ACC" of the CIT, it doesn't surprise me that a Valley team was awarded all home games for the second year in a row!
IF attendance was the number one factor Creighton would have been the overall #1 seed but I agree that it is part of it. We averaged over 8000 during conference games but I am not sure what Marshall or S. Miss averaged.
Tweet
Comment