PDA

View Full Version : Minor post-season tournaments (NIT, CIT, CBI) -- teams, players obligated to play?



TravelinZag
03-02-2014, 07:16 PM
The inquiry is partially prompted by the news story about how much money Wichita State lost by going as far as they did in the NCAA's last year. Can't imagine a team turning down the dance, or a team that hasn't seen post-season play in some time refusing a bid to a "minor" tournament. But do conferences require member teams to accept all bids, even if it costs them money in the short run? And are players obligated to participate by the terms of their scholarships?

Seem to remember one coach who took only his non-seniors to a minor tourney, treating it as a head start on the following year. The honor of playing is relative, sort of like an olympic bronze medal. In the hands of an athlete who surprisingly made the national team, the bronze medal is a huge achievement. But in the hands of a heavily-favored athlete who expected to win the gold, the bronze is is symbol of disappointment, or perhaps even failure. Can't imagine many elite teams, or many senior players who had played in three NCAA tournaments feeling real excitement about a trip to the CIT. Can they say, "Thanks, but no" ? Would think teams and players in these tournaments should want to be there, or be able to decline. What are the rules?

vandalzag
03-02-2014, 07:18 PM
The inquiry is partially prompted by the news story about how much money Wichita State lost by going as far as they did in the NCAA's last year. Can't imagine a team turning down the dance, or a team that hasn't seen post-season play in some time refusing a bid to a "minor" tournament. But do conferences require member teams to accept all bids, even if it costs them money in the short run? And are players obligated to participate by the terms of their scholarships?

Seem to remember one coach who took only his non-seniors to a minor tourney, treating it as a head start on the following year. The honor of playing is relative, sort of like an olympic bronze medal. In the hands of an athlete who surprisingly made the national team, the bronze medal is a huge achievement. But in the hands of a heavily-favored athlete who expected to win the gold, the bronze is is symbol of disappointment, or perhaps even failure. Can't imagine many elite teams, or many senior players who had played in three NCAA tournaments feeling real excitement about a trip to the CIT. Can they say, "Thanks, but no" ? Would think teams and players in these tournaments should want to be there, or be able to decline. What are the rules?

Do you have a link to the story? I can understand losing money the first round but the Final Four hard to imagine?

willandi
03-02-2014, 07:46 PM
I would think it would be important to Coach Romar, no matter how trivial the post season tourney, to participate so the Zags aren't the only Wa State team in post season. Kind of a pride thing...like having Bigfoots baby!

Radbooks
03-02-2014, 07:58 PM
I was surprised to read Wichita State lost money, but the article was on the CBS basketball page (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24425654/report-wichita-state-actually-lost-money-by-making-the-final-four) about a month ago.


Wichita State has really increased its national profile with an undefeated season on the heels of that 2013 Final Four run. But who knew there'd be fiscal downfall as a result?

Forbes.com reports that the trip to Atlanta last year wound up costing the college some cash. In winning four big dance games, that means more travel for a lot more people and expenses factored in that aren't originally estimated in the university's budget. It certainly adds up -- and the money bonuses for advancing through the bracket don't get paid out in one lump sum to each program. It's a six-year stagger of distribution.

Plus, when a coach has incentives in his contract that earn him bonuses for going further in the tournament, that money he's paid comes out of the school budget.

So that's how Wichita State ended up in the red in the short-term. Forbes reports the team's $5.4 million in expenses last season were 16 percent above the preceding years' average. Normally the school nets about $1 million. Think about that imbalance.

TravelinZag
03-02-2014, 08:17 PM
Thanks, Radbooks, for helping to answer Vandalzag's question. I regret I don't have a link. As a recall, it was a Matt Norlander story in late January. One other detail I remember was that the conference takes a cut, then divides the remainder to the member schools in payments of about $70-$80,000 annually for each of the next six years. So over six years (assuming they remain in the conference), each member school makes money. Wichita State loses money in the first year because their expenses (not shared) occurred in one year. Strange that the school earning the money nets less than the other members of the conference. Seems like an entire conference reaping the benefits of one member's success. Strangely familiar.

Birddog
03-03-2014, 04:11 AM
I haven't read the article but I'm not buying that WSU lost money. There has to be more to this. I'm pretty sure all the teams expenses including lodging and meal per diem are paid for by the NCAA. They provide airline travel too. I guess if WSU included the cost of sending VIPs or some other such nonsense, then they could have had trouble breaking even. They should have made a pile of $$ just off souveneir T shirts, hats etc.

Teams that go to lesser Football Bowl games often times get hosed because they can't sell off their mandatory allotted tickets but that doesn't happen at the NCAA BB Tournament. Maybe some smart GU alum that had a dose of Loeffler and Brajcich could weigh in and explain how it could be possible.

It's believeable that some of these lesser post season tournaments could cost some $$ as they rarely play in packed houses and I don't think the TV $$ is that good.

wnczagfan
03-03-2014, 05:57 AM
The way I am reading it, they just lost money in the short term, but will reap the financial benefits in later years.

kitzbuel
03-03-2014, 06:38 AM
The way I am reading it, they just lost money in the short term, but will reap the financial benefits in later years.

Exactly. They had not budgeted the travel and other expenses of 5 additional road games for last year, so that put them in the red for last year.

They will make more money than they lost with the tournament earnings due to them in the future, but that didn't change the balance for last year.

I would bet they could probably find a loan that would cover those expenses....

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk

vandalzag
03-03-2014, 07:07 AM
Thanks for the link. It is an interesting read. Never knew the NCAA spread the payouts of over 6 years. Seems like the school may have been a little short sited on their budget. Also you would think that the Conference would let the participating schools recoup expenses up front, since they are bring home the cash. One does have to wonder where all the NCAA TV and corporate money is going.

bartruff1
03-03-2014, 07:59 AM
I read some place that Butler's run was worth more than a Billion over time...I don't know about that...but I say complete nonsense to the idea that the Shockers will lose money.

Zags11
03-03-2014, 08:04 AM
Wsu had to profit. Especially on a run to the final 4.

007Zag
03-03-2014, 08:04 AM
If you read the article closely, the basketball program didn't actually lose money, it's just that they made less. If team expenses were up 16% to $5.4mm, that means that the team normally has expenses of $4.66mm, so they spent an extra $740k. If the school typically nets $1mm from the program (total revenue of $5.66mm), they should still come out $260k in the black. It's possible that the university was counting on higher net income from the basketball program to be put to other uses, either within the athletic department or the greater university, but they didn't have to allocate additional money to the athletic department to cover a shortfall.

TravelinZag
03-03-2014, 10:30 AM
You're missing my point. If a team could lose money going to the NCAA final four, even if just for the first year, how much can it cost to participate in the Consolation Invitation Tournament or the Consolation Basketball Championship? Remember, these events are for programs which were not among the 68 invited to the dance. Nor were they among the 32 at the NIT (once the premier post-season event). In other words, these last two are only for teams not among the 100 most successful programs in the current season. Not distinguished events. Not good teams. And, I'm guessing, not well-paying events. For that matter, even the NIT is questionable. Nearly 20% make the NCAA's; isn't that enough?

My question was: do conferences require teams, and scholarships require players to participate in these farces?

ZagMania
03-03-2014, 10:36 AM
To answer your question, I believe they can.

An old example via a quick google search: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/11/sports/colleges-basketball-hoyas-refuse-nit-bid-as-atlantic-10-gets-five.html