OT: Fox negotiating with BE/B12/B10 for LV post season tourney (top 16 that didn't make NCAA)

[rutgersguy1]

From the article:

Discussions are ongoing, but the current vision is for the event to include 16 teams that would play at T-Mobile Arena during the final week of March following the NCAA tournament’s Elite Eight games. If the tournament happens, Fox plans to encourage its corporate partners to set up Name, Image and Likeness deals for players who are competing; the network will not be able to pay players directly due to NCAA rules.

Under terms of the proposed arrangement, the top 16 teams in the Big 12, Big East and Big Ten that did not qualify for the NCAA tournament — as ranked by the NET — would be required to play in the Fox event even if they are invited to the NIT. Those three leagues have rights deals with Fox. The network also has a rights agreement with the Pac-12, but it is unclear whether that league would be added due to complications arising from the Pac-12’s impending realignment defections.

 

[RUChoppin]

If that happens, the NIT will slip further into irrelevance and might have to close up shop

 

[Richie O]

Fox Proposes New Vegas-Based College Hoops Tournament

The field for late March would include the top 16 teams from the Big East, Big Ten and Big 12 that didn't make the NCAA tournament

themessenger.com

 

[Groz]

I think this is a fantastic idea. It probably wouldn't sell out, but I do think many people would make a trip to Vegas to see it from those schools participating. It is better than the current NIT.

Best of Luck,
Groz

 

[mdk01]

Who sponsors the NIT these days, and how much juice do they have? Thread title should have included it's teams that did not qualify for March Madness.

 

[Plum Street]

If that happens, the NIT will slip further into irrelevance and might have to close up shop

Think bigger . This is just the first step .
They are coming for the real tourney.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

🤮

 

[Richie O]

Who sponsors the NIT these days, and how much juice do they have? Thread title should have included it's teams that did not qualify for March Madness.

Thought that was kind of obvious with the tournament being in March 🤷‍♂️

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Just do a big Holiday tournament with major teams and the results matter.

 

[NickRU714]

Think bigger . This is just the first step .
They are coming for the real tourney.

That was my thought.

Start with the teams on the outside.
Then it’s “Rutgers - why be a play in team and #12 seed? Play in our tournament for more $$ and be the marquee team of the tournament.”

 

[MiloTalon13]

Think bigger . This is just the first step .
They are coming for the real tourney.

It's inevitable.

 

[DC8690]

How about we combine this thread with the same exact one posted 2 hours earlier

 

[BigEastPhil]

Can only imagine how many opt outs of players will occur. I see it as quite high.

So teams eligible for NIT will play in NIT and also this tourney?

Why will coaches support this ? They ll want season to be over and not risk injury to their key players

 

[RUChoppin]

Can only imagine how many opt outs of players will occur. I see it as quite high.

So teams eligible for NIT will play in NIT and also this tourney?

Why will coaches support this ? They ll want season to be over and not risk injury to their key players

Have a feeling it'd be either/or with the NIT, and the NIT would wither without any power conference teams drawing eyeballs and advertising

 

[rutgersguy1]

Who sponsors the NIT these days, and how much juice do they have? Thread title should have included it's teams that did not qualify for March Madness.

I did include that in the title. It says top 16 that didn’t make the NCAA.

It’s also in the article if you click the link and read it.

If anything I wonder if this won’t be a first nudge to try to get the NCAA to expand in the future so more P5 schools can get in.

 

[Russ Wood]

So a tournament with some mediocre teams that might not have won half of its conference games but just from conferences that Fox has contracts with 🤔

 

[MiloTalon13]

So a tournament with some mediocre teams that might not have won half of its conference games but just from conferences that Fox has contracts with 🤔

Most of the teams in it will be better than 20+ of the teams in the NCAA tournament

 

[Russ Wood]

Most of the teams in it will be better than 20+ of the teams in the NCAA tournament

Convince me.

 

[biazza38]

So a tournament with some mediocre teams that might not have won half of its conference games but just from conferences that Fox has contracts with 🤔

Agree with this

 

[NickRU714]

Convince me.

Huh?
Wasn't Rutgers (team #69 or 70 last season) better than the many one conference bid AQ teams seeded #13 through #16?

The flaw in the 68 team NCAA tournament is that only the best 50ish teams are actually invited.

 

[Nycrusupporter]

Huh?
Wasn't Rutgers (team #69 or 70 last season) better than the many one conference bid AQ teams seeded #13 through #16?

The flaw in the 68 team NCAA tournament is that only the best 50ish teams are actually invited.

Not at the end of the year, we lost to Hofstra.

 

[RUDiddy777]

Not at the end of the year, we lost to Hofstra.

Hofstra played insane and had an absurd amount of luck.

 

[RUChoppin]

So a tournament with some mediocre teams that might not have won half of its conference games but just from conferences that Fox has contracts with 🤔

It's basically just an NIT replacement that removes the mid/low-majors.... and the ACC/SEC, which I'd imagine would look to join in if this thing ever gets off the ground (as the only other option would be a very watered-down NIT).

Looking at the 2023 NIT lineup from last year and next year's conference affiliation, it would have been:
Cincinnati
Colorado
Michigan
Oklahoma St
Oregon
Rutgers
Seton Hall
Villanova
Wisconsin
...and 7 other teams

If you just pull from the next-best records among the 3 Fox-aligned conferences, it'd be:
St. John's (18-15)
Utah (17-15)
Nebraska (16-16)
Texas Tech (16-16)
Washington (16-16)
Ohio State (16-19)
Butler (14-18)

If you include the SEC/ACC 2023 NIT teams, that would add:
Clemson
Florida
Vanderbilt
Virginia Tech
... and you'd only need 3 more from the list above (or the remainder of the ACC/SEC.... like 20-13 UNC or 17-15 Syracuse)

Honestly, not a terrible tournament - and would likely have sold more tickets/advertising than most of the NIT matchups last year.

Edit: Forgot Oklahoma joined the SEC.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Next Saudi’s Arabia going to announce their tournament. I can guarantee no player is opting out of this one.

 

[MiloTalon13]

Honestly, not a terrible tournament - and would likely have sold more tickets/advertising than most of the NIT matchups last year.

Yup - brilliant idea by Fox
In a few years a top seed in the Fox tournament could be worth more than a 10-11 seed in the NCAA tournament. It might not take long.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Hofstra played insane and had an absurd amount of luck.

They also scored more points than we did.

 

[RUDiddy777]

They also scored more points than we did.

And that’s how they did it. Did you watch the game?

 

[Russ Wood]

Huh?
Wasn't Rutgers (team #69 or 70 last season) better than the many one conference bid AQ teams seeded #13 through #16?

The flaw in the 68 team NCAA tournament is that only the best 50ish teams are actually invited.

Those AQ teams earned their way in. They had no effect on Rutgers. If Rutgers had won the B1G tournament they'd have been an AQ.

If Rutgers didn't lose to a 16-win Temple team or a 17-win Seton Hall team Rutgers would have been in the tournament.

 

[Russ Wood]

It's basically just an NIT replacement that removes the mid/low-majors.... and the ACC/SEC, which I'd imagine would look to join in if this thing ever gets off the ground (as the only other option would be a very watered-down NIT).

Looking at the 2023 NIT lineup from last year and next year's conference affiliation, it would have been:
Cincinnati
Colorado
Michigan
Oklahoma St
Oregon
Rutgers
Seton Hall
Villanova
Wisconsin
...and 7 other teams

If you just pull from the next-best records among the 3 Fox-aligned conferences, it'd be:
St. John's (18-15)
Utah (17-15)
Nebraska (16-16)
Texas Tech (16-16)
Washington (16-16)
Ohio State (16-19)
Butler (14-18)

If you include the SEC/ACC 2023 NIT teams, that would add:
Clemson
Florida
Vanderbilt
Virginia Tech
... and you'd only need 3 more from the list above (or the remainder of the ACC/SEC.... like 20-13 UNC or 17-15 Syracuse)

Honestly, not a terrible tournament - and would likely have sold more tickets/advertising than most of the NIT matchups last year.

Edit: Forgot Oklahoma joined the SEC.

It's worse than the current NIT.

 

[mdk01]

And to think that way, way back the NIT was the equal of the NCAA. And way back when, when the NCAA's were a 16 team (and even a 32) it was one hell of a tourney. Only 1 bid to the ACC and one to the PAC-10 meant some great teams were playing. Is the NIT a MSG sponsored event? This seems to be a deeper set of pockets muscling in for (they hope) TV money.

 

[NickRU714]

Those AQ teams earned their way in. They had no effect on Rutgers. If Rutgers had won the B1G tournament they'd have been an AQ.

If Rutgers didn't lose to a 16-win Temple team or a 17-win Seton Hall team Rutgers would have been in the tournament.

Not relevant.
You said "convince me" in that the teams in this new tournament would be better than 20+ NCAA Tournament teams.

Easy. Just because teams make the tournament doesn't mean they are better than teams that didn't make it.
Rutgers was arguably the first team out of the tournament.
These teams would have been seeded lower than Rutgers had they replaced Nevada (seeded #46 overall).

Would you say any of these teams were better than Rutgers last year?
Which of these teams is favored over Rutgers on a neutral court?
47. Col. of Charleston (31-3)
48. Oral Roberts (30-4)
49. Drake (27-7)
50. VCU (27-7)
51. Kent St. (286)
52. lona (27-7)
53. Furman (27-7)
54. Louisiana (26- 7)
55. Kennesaw St. (26-8)
56 UC Santa Barbara (27 - 7)
57. Grand Canyon (2411)
58. Montana St. (25) - 9)
59. Vermont (23-10)
60. Colgate (26-8)
61. Princeton (21 - 8)
62. UNC Asheville (27-7)
63. Northern Ky. (22 - 12)
64. Howard (22 - 12)
65. A&M-Corpus Christi (23-10)
66. Texas Southern (14-20)
67. Southeast Mo. St. (1916)
68. FDU (19-15)

 

[Joey Bags]

I fully expect the NCAA tourney to be destroyed by 2030.

I also expect college sports to be worth peanuts compared to now in 2035 as a result of the fall out from all the short term money grabs.

NASCAR is a great case study of what short term money grabs on an already highly valuable sports offering can result in.

 

[G- RUnit]

RU suffered enormous let down after not getting in after beat down and revenge win on a neutral court over Michigan and almost got Purdue again.
I don’t know how you motivate a team against Hofstra.
Then Hofstra shot like that St. John’s game years ago and never missed.
Perfect Storm.

 

[mdk01]

I fully expect the NCAA tourney to be destroyed by 2030.

I also expect college sports to be worth peanuts compared to now in 2035 as a result of the fall out from all the short term money grabs.

NASCAR is a great case study of what short term money grabs on an already highly valuable sports offering can result in.

IMHO if one thing in the current college sports scene survives past 2030 it's March Madness.

 

[Russ Wood]

Not relevant.
You said "convince me" in that the teams in this new tournament would be better than 20+ NCAA Tournament teams.

Easy. Just because teams make the tournament doesn't mean they are better than teams that didn't make it.
Rutgers was arguably the first team out of the tournament.
These teams would have been seeded lower than Rutgers had they replaced Nevada (seeded #46 overall).

Would you say any of these teams were better than Rutgers last year?
Which of these teams is favored over Rutgers on a neutral court?
47. Col. of Charleston (31-3)
48. Oral Roberts (30-4)
49. Drake (27-7)
50. VCU (27-7)
51. Kent St. (286)
52. lona (27-7)
53. Furman (27-7)
54. Louisiana (26- 7)
55. Kennesaw St. (26-8)
56 UC Santa Barbara (27 - 7)
57. Grand Canyon (2411)
58. Montana St. (25) - 9)
59. Vermont (23-10)
60. Colgate (26-8)
61. Princeton (21 - 8)
62. UNC Asheville (27-7)
63. Northern Ky. (22 - 12)
64. Howard (22 - 12)
65. A&M-Corpus Christi (23-10)
66. Texas Southern (14-20)
67. Southeast Mo. St. (1916)
68. FDU (19-15)

You didn't convince me so it is relevant to me.

I don't care who is favored or not because upsets happen all the time in the tournament.

I think Furman, VCU, Charleston, Louisiana, Iona, to name a few you listed were more deserving of being in the tournament than RU. You didn't list them but I think UAB was more deserving than RU.

 

[NickRU714]

You didn't convince me so it is relevant to me.

I don't care who is favored or not because upsets happen all the time in the tournament.

I think Furman, VCU, Charleston, Louisiana, Iona, to name a few you listed were more deserving of being in the tournament than RU. You didn't list them but I think UAB was more deserving than RU.

Nobody is saying they didn't deserve to be in the NCAA tournament over Rutgers.
I'll make it simple and provide direct quotes.

Milo said: "Most of the teams in it will be better than 20+ of the teams in the NCAA tournament"
You responded: "Convince me"

I provided a list of 20+ teams that were in the NCAA Tournament.
Additionally, I provided an example of a team who would be in the proposed Fox Tournament: our beloved Rutgers.

Which of those 20+ teams were BETTER than Rutgers?

 

[RUChoppin]

It's worse than the current NIT.

Which is an opinion that will surely be shared by many, but the "Not Important Tournament" has also set a low bar to limbo under for the average viewer.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

And that’s how they did it. Did you watch the game?

I did not.

 

[RUDiddy777]

I did not.

Ah..so you were just trying to be funny. Missed that.

For context, I was responding to a post that suggested that because we lost to Hofstra, we shouldn’t have made the tournament.

If you watched the game, our loss to Purdue in the B1G tourney was questionable - some phantom calls led to Caleb fouling out (even Matt Painter was confused). Would have been impossible to keep us out of the NCAA had we won that one.

In the Hofstra game, based on shot quality metrics, they had like a 10% chance of winning - we put up 86 pts, our D forced them into bad and contested shots - and they just fell. (57% from the floor, 38%from 3 - we shot 50/40). That’s just how it goes sometimes. We beat Hofstra 9 times out of 10.

 

[MiloTalon13]

It's basically just an NIT replacement that removes the mid/low-majors.... and the ACC/SEC, which I'd imagine would look to join in if this thing ever gets off the ground (as the only other option would be a very watered-down NIT).

Looking at the 2023 NIT lineup from last year and next year's conference affiliation, it would have been:
Cincinnati
Colorado
Michigan
Oklahoma St
Oregon
Rutgers
Seton Hall
Villanova
Wisconsin
...and 7 other teams

If you just pull from the next-best records among the 3 Fox-aligned conferences, it'd be:
St. John's (18-15)
Utah (17-15)
Nebraska (16-16)
Texas Tech (16-16)
Washington (16-16)
Ohio State (16-19)
Butler (14-18)

If you include the SEC/ACC 2023 NIT teams, that would add:
Clemson
Florida
Vanderbilt
Virginia Tech
... and you'd only need 3 more from the list above (or the remainder of the ACC/SEC.... like 20-13 UNC or 17-15 Syracuse)

Honestly, not a terrible tournament - and would likely have sold more tickets/advertising than most of the NIT matchups last year.

Edit: Forgot Oklahoma joined the SEC.

Does Fox seed by some analytic ranking? or for TV ratings?
They could go with rivalry games in the first round.
This would be way more interesting (and watched) than the NIT