Revisiting this idea

[Bravesfan]

I attempted to start a thread about this a few weeks ago, but it went nowhere. Now that things have slowed down, I will post this again.

A Tulsa website posted this article about three weeks ago suggesting that the CBI might spawn more postseason tournaments, ala the football bowl system:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sports/article.aspx?articleID=20080331_2_B1_spanc72170

Does anyone think more tournaments are a good idea, or do most of us feel this would make a joke out of the postseason?

I like the idea of more tournaments to allow the lower or mid-majors that don't normally make postseason a chance to play somemore. I just don't know where we should draw the line. I think for now, the CBI is probably good enough, though there still were some good mid-majors that were left out, not counting the ones that turned down an invite due to the entry fee. Perhaps there's room for one more of these tourneys, but not until the CBI gains a reputation. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[Stryker]

The biggest barrier to this is cost IMO. As you stated some colleges turned down the CBI because of the cost to participate. Having multiple tournaments makes it harder for each one to make money, which to be honest, is why they exist. Most people nationally thought the CBI was kind of a joke, and although it wasn't anything major it did turn out to be a good tournament. However, I think outside of the participating teams fan base, few tournaments like the CBI are going to be able to pull in the revenue to make it feasible. Another tournament like the CBI may find more teams turning it down, or getting smaller schools that cannot create the revenue.

[VeveJones007]

Like sequels for movies, as long as there's a market for more, I'm sure there will be more. Whether or not people like it is a matter of opinion. Mine is that it's at a good level with the NCAA, NIT, and CBI because roughly one-third of the teams in college basketball play in the postseason, but I understand everyone who wants more teams involved and those who want fewer teams involved.

[ph]

It's like pro sports (NFL, MLB, NBA...) First the league expands (more teams) then they expand the playoffs (addWild card) and at every step, traditionalists argue that growth is bad for the quality of the sport/competition, yet revenue generally grows..

[Chico]

IMO, 3 touraments are enough. At first I was against the CBI, but when I saw the pairings I changed my mind. There were many teams with rich basketball history involved. Such as Bradley, Cinci, Virginia, Houston and Tulsa. Many of the teams just had sub par seasons. Besides, our loyal fans had 6 more games to cheer the Braves on. As a season ticket holder for many years, a post season bid was all I ever wanted.

[mportsch]

I think things are just about right where they are now - even with the CBI, a team still needs to be fairly good to reach a postseason tournament. The CBI expanded the postseason field from 97 to 113, which I think is fine. I know as a fan that I'll watch any game that matches two solid teams, and the CBI produced a very good final series in Bradley vs Tulsa. I think the quality of play in the CBI will be even higher next season, since it will be a bit more of a known quantity and schools might not be as uneasy about participating.

I don't think we need any other postseason tournaments at this point - if a team can't finish as one of the top 113 teams in the nation, I don't see the point in rewarding them with postseason play. As an Illinois fan, I would have watched them in the CBI, but I can't really say that they earned the right to play in the postseason.

[Bravesfan]

IMO, 3 touraments are enough. At first I was against the CBI, but when I saw the pairings I changed my mind. There were many teams with rich basketball history involved. Such as Bradley, Cinci, Virginia, Houston and Tulsa. Many of the teams just had sub par seasons. Besides, our loyal fans had 6 more games to cheer the Braves on. As a season ticket holder for many years, a post season bid was all I ever wanted.

Shhhhh! Don't say that. Many of our own BU fans were somewhat down on the idea of the CBI.

But seriously, I'm with you Chico. Any post season is better than no post season. As long as we make the NCAA Tournament every few years of course!

[Dallas Brave]

If teams want to play, fans want to watch, and the organizers can make money, then I say have as many as possible!

I also welcome anything that can help reduce the choke hold that the BCS has on the NCAA tournament and tournaments like the CBI are one way. But, I wouldn't be surprised to see the NCAA expand the NIT as soon as next year. Now that the CBI has shown an economic wound in their current NCAA/NIT approach, I think the NCAA will be quick to react. Expanding the NIT field, which already possesses the main attraction of the CBI (playing on home courts ... other than the Final 4 in NYC), is the easiest way to squash these upstart tournaments.

[BU ICEMAN]

I'm with DB on this one, if there's teams willing and able, go for it.

However though, no matter how many of these tournaments pop up, I'm not so sure that they'll be able to reduce any BCS "choke hold." It's possible that they could even strengthen it, because the selectors/detractors/etc. could use them as excuses to leave teams out and let them play in the "mid-major tournaments." Just thinkin' out loud there....

Just like any other expansion that occurs in any sports league, though, there will be a dilution factor. Literally, the CBI (and any others that may pop up) is a "postseason tournament," but I look at it more like a "tournament that occurs after the regular season." I know it's word games, but I think that the NIT and NCAAs are the two legitimate (for lack of a better term) "postseason tournaments."

[Bravesfan]

I'm with DB on this one, if there's teams willing and able, go for it.

However though, no matter how many of these tournaments pop up, I'm not so sure that they'll be able to reduce any BCS "choke hold." It's possible that they could even strengthen it, because the selectors/detractors/etc. could use them as excuses to leave teams out and let them play in the "mid-major tournaments." Just thinkin' out loud there....

Just like any other expansion that occurs in any sports league, though, there will be a dilution factor. Literally, the CBI (and any others that may pop up) is a "postseason tournament," but I look at it more like a "tournament that occurs after the regular season." I know it's word games, but I think that the NIT and NCAAs are the two legitimate (for lack of a better term) "postseason tournaments."

That's what worries me a bit too. The NCAA may use this as an excuse that any tournaments outside of the NCAA's and NIT should be saved for the mid-majors that don't make the NCAA's or NIT. Of course, the CBI already is beginning to fill that bill, as a great majority of the teams participating this year were mid-majors or very mediocre BCS teams.

Then again, if the CBI is going to be relegated as a "third-tier" mid-major showcase, the CBI couldn't have had a better start as Bradley and Tulsa provided a terrific first year championship series that hopefully will be duplicated in years to come.

[Dallas Brave]

However though, no matter how many of these tournaments pop up, I'm not so sure that they'll be able to reduce any BCS "choke hold." It's possible that they could even strengthen it, because the selectors/detractors/etc. could use them as excuses to leave teams out and let them play in the "mid-major tournaments." Just thinkin' out loud there....

I hadn't considered that angle ... yikes!

[braveatheart]

I think the CBI has a place. It was great for Bradley this year. If we look at NCAA D1 football, there are 121 teams and 32 bowl games. This means 64 teams play in the post season. Over half the teams play in a bowl. Of course they catch flak about it too. I guess they make money on it or they wouldn't keep doing it.
I am not suggesting we have half the D1 basketball teams go to the post season as that would be 170 teams making the postseason. 113 teams is not over doing it however, in my opinion.
If the NCAA doesn't like the competition from the CBI or any new tournaments all they have to do is expand the NIT to 64 teams. That would probably blow the CBI and everybody else right out of the water.