Which ACC teams do we think are out? UVA, Wake Forest, Pitt? Plays a big role in where or if the Hokies get an NIT hosting opportunity or bid at all.
What other bubble team do you want to see in or out?
How about Long Beach State making the tournament after their coach was told by the administration that he is fired at seasons end?
What else are you looking for?
Does the SEC get teams with losing records into the NIT with their autobids since several teams have already made it clear they are declining?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the Hokies NIT chances are:
If at least 2 out of UVA, Wake and Pitt make the tourney then the Hokies are hosting an NIT game
If at least 1 out of the 3 makes the tourney then we have a slim possibility of playing on the road.
If none of the 3 make the NCAAs then we have a near 0 chance of making the NIT.
First point is correct
Second is a slim possibility of hosting
Third is incorrect
Each of the six power conferences each get two autobids that will host based on Final NET Ranking
After those twelve, the committee selects the next twenty spots with NET as a driving factor. Hosting priority goes to team identified as First Four Out from NCAAs.
Regular season conference champions that dont make the NCAAs no longer are guaranteed bids.
Hokies based on NET and remaining teams after NCAAs are almost guaranteed a spot but if they don't get an ACC autobid then the chance to host is greatly reduced. The challenge there is how the Hokies have played on the road.
I love that I can come here and learn stuff.
The injury in the Florida-Auburn game was one of the worst I've ever seen
Loluva is in the play-in as a 10 seed. No Clemson and no Wake as of yet
clemson a 6
Was I completely ignorant of ACC teams this year or is this kind of a surprise? Especially as a 6 seed. I thought they started strong (as they usually do) and then fell off, to the point I wasn't even considering them as a bubble team.
Was their OOC schedule so great that after getting their teeth kicked in by BC last week, they were apparently still head and shoulders above UVA, Wake, and Pitt who all made it further?
edit: grammar
No Pitt and no Wake. How does that affect you he NIT for us?
Leaves us hoping for one of the 4 at large home games. I don't think a bid is in question. Hokies finished 60 in NET rankings.
Pitt declined NIT
wow, they think an awful lot of themselves
From what I've read most of the declines are because teams want to get a start on the portal. That and/or they expect enough players to opt out that it's not worth playing.
I can't decide if that reinforces my point or if it's means nobody really cares about the NIT.
That helps us. Should mean we move up to autobid host.
I think the biggest takeaway is if the NET rankings are so far removed from the selection criteria, they should go back and review NET criteria to make it better align.
Six teams under 45 in NET did not get selected yet 5 teams behind them got At Large bids. Inside the seedings the committee seeded many teams (12-15) significantly different than their NET.
Men's NIT Selection is at 930pm on ESPN2.
Looks like First round NIT should not interfere with Women's NCAAs but Second round may.
3 seed in the NIT vs Richmond
We'd get Ohio State or Cornell with a win.
Mike Young gets a chance to prove he's owns the State. Also should be a sell out.
Do we know day and time yet?
1st round: March 19-20
2nd round: March 23-24
Looks like it's the 19th at 9pm on ESPN2.
For Richmond, Jordan King drives their offense but they do have a monster big in Neal Quinn. 7' and 280 lbs. who can also take over games.
Yeah, this is a good Richmond squad, I think at their best they're the best team in the state this year (sorry JMU). Not overwhelming, but if King is hitting it they're hard to beat.
I realize it's hard to get super hyped about playing in the NIT, but this is actually a good opportunity for Mike Young to inject some momentum back into the program.
A couple of wins would get us to 20, which I think would leave a much better taste in the mouth of the fan base. The flip side, of course, is that getting bounced by Richmond Tuesday would be a really tough end to the season.
This.
We always have bitched about missing the NCAA tourney, being snubbed, etc., but at the same time we haven't moved the needle much in any post-season play, save for that one sweet 16 year, since joining the ACC. It would be great for CMY to differentiate themselves by making a good run in the NIT and not fall flat on their faces in the first round.
Well I am going to try and get tickets.
So to show the impact this season to NIT with new criteria eliminating autobids for Regular season champs that did not make the NIT. Nine of them did not make the NIT this season: Central Connecticut, Toledo, Sam Houston St, Eastern Kentucky and Eastern Washington, Quinnipiac, Little Rock, High Point and Norfolk State
Small guys don't drive TV numbers.
(Neither does the NIT.)
The big conferences are simply playing bully. And hoarding the pot o' money.
People will watch if Virginia Tech plays Ohio State in the 2nd round. But no one cares about High Point playing Little Rock. So I think eliminating the autobids is a good move.
I get it, and understand the dollar is winning, but keeping NINE regular season conference winners out of the NIT is harsh. They're gonna start either charging big bucks for trips to the big boys during the regular season or stop playing them all together if they can't even sit at the kids table during post-season.
I don't think it's only about dollars, but also about teams people might actually want to watch.
High Point was a respectable 23-8 this season, but their NET ranking is 110, playing in the Big South. Little Rock was a pretty pedestrian 21-12 while playing in the Ohio Valley Conference, playing alongside a school I've literally never heard of, Lindenwood. And Little Rock's NET was 182.
I don't believe they've always had autobids for teams like this, just the last few years maybe? And of course, if any of these teams had won their conference tournament, they'd be in the NCAA Tournament right now. Even Lindenwood.
But this is the same thing with football, and the playoff. The average fan would rather see Penn State play Tennessee, even if they're not as good as pick a random school from the Big 12/ACC, and the TV networks know that, and that's why we are where we're at now with the playoff. At some point winning games should matter, and not TV ratings. There's obviously a bigger gap in talent with the basketball schools, but it's a similar principle.
There are many schools this time of year that would beg to differ, especially UMBC.
Ya, that talent gap was 20
That's exactly the kind of game that makes the point. Objectively, UVA was a much more talented team than UMBC (sorry), but you still have to win the game. Can't just skate by on talent.
It's appropriate that the tourney takes place in/around Easter cuz you can't spell "talent" without "lent".
And UVA has the tradition of giving up scoring this time of year.
While researching your point on the new selection criteria I found an article on the changes made for 2024.
NIT announces changes to tournament selection format
Another change that struck me as interesting is:
Yeah I mentioned that in one of the earlier posts but going to be interested to see how it's employed at Cassell. Curious if it will be an applique over each paint area.
Especially since there is a women's NCAA play in game tomorrow night
Let's all go laugh at UVA.
UVA only broke 40 when the walkons came in for csu. Shades of what we did to them in Cassell
25pt. loss in a play-in game. Absolutely BTFO. Please, selection committee, tell me again how they deserved that chance over other teams with better criteria.
Wow, I had them winning the play in game and then getting hosed in the first round. Talk about not wanting to be there.
I find that shirt to be incredibly disrespectful to the University of Iowa and their entire football program.
Iowa definitely plays better defense