This afternoon, the NCAA announced a few changes to this year’s NIT format. We’ll get to those in a minute, but we’re going to start with a refresher on how we got here. I think context is helpful. (For those new here: I am in no way formally affiliated with the NCAA or the NIT. I just love the NIT more than I love life itself.)
For a little less than two decades, the NIT had automatic bids. We believe these began with the 2006 NIT. They went to regular season conference champions who weren’t selected to the NCAA T*urnament.
Last offseason, Fox Sports began planning a competitor tournament to the NIT that would only feature power conference teams. Someone leaked the details to Seth Davis, who published them in September. The idea was roundly panned. But, because of Fox Sports’s bonds to the Big East, Big 12, and Big Ten, the NCAA was evidently cornered enough to play some defense.
A month later, the NCAA announced they were giving two NIT automatic bids apiece to those three conferences and the rest of what was then the informal Power Six (i.e., the Pac-12, ACC, and SEC). To make room, and to increase the level of competition, the NCAA did away with those 2006–2023 automatic bids. No longer would Wagner make the NIT if Wagner won its regular season title and lost in its conference tournament.
At the time the move was announced, and then again in March when the NIT Selection Show approached, this move was widely criticized. Many viewed it as a concession to big-money programs at the expense of the little guy. To some extent, this was what happened. We, however, viewed the concession as necessary. High-major conferences were threatening to abandon the NIT for this Fox Sports competitor. Without high-major teams, the NIT could struggle to generate continued interest from ESPN, eventually suffering a similar fate to the CIT (which is mostly gone now) or the CBI (which struggles to get teams to participate). The NIT has always been under attack, since its second year of existence, but it was particularly under attack in the early 2020’s, assailed by villains and monsters ranging from the UNC Tar Heels to the novel coronavirus.
Whether justified or not, the new format worked. 2024’s was a landmark NIT. Indiana State fans packed Hinkle Fieldhouse to the rafters for the NIT Final Four. TV ratings were the highest they’d been in years. While the NCAA T*urnament took criticism for a slew of unexciting games (I’m not exaggerating, this criticism existed), the NIT’s first night alone featured eight games which came down to the wire. Competition was better, and the unsightly number of coaches opting out at least removed some teams who weren’t going to play hard. It stunk that Eastern Kentucky didn’t get the automatic bid which would have been theirs in the 2006–2023 format, but San Francisco and Georgia and the others who made the field were great NIT teams to have aboard.
Still, Fox Sports forged ahead with their attempt at an NIT competitor, finally announcing in the middle of the NIT Final Four that their alternative NIT was indeed on its way. In 2025, there’d be a new postseason basketball tournament called the College Basketball Crown. Teams would have to travel to Las Vegas, teams would have to wait two weeks after the season ended before they could play, and teams might include some Big 12/Big East/Big Ten participants. Overall, details were hazy, and the little bits that were explicit were bizarre. Imagine telling Fran McCaffery this coming March that his conference signed him up to wait two whole weeks and then travel to Las Vegas to play DePaul.
If the College Basketball Crown happens in 2025, I don’t see how it’ll be anything other than a disaster. I don’t have anything against Fox Sports (besides the fact that someone in their offices tried to kill the thing I hold most dear), but I wish they’d just offered ESPN some money to broadcast NIT games which would otherwise be on ESPN+. That would have been a reasonable solution. Attempting to rip the fabric of college basketball from corner to corner was not. Maybe they offered and ESPN, knowing the value of the broadcasting rights they have, said no.
I’m sorry for the lengthy history, but I think the context here is important. The NCAA didn’t decide on its own to change the NIT format. The NCAA was pressured to do it by the TV partner of three high-major conferences. Now, after a year, they have a chance to adapt. Those adaptations are what they announced today. Here’s what’s new:
The Big 12/Big East/Big Ten Lost Their Privileges
There will still be two “exempt” bids reserved for both the ACC and the SEC, but the Big 12, Big East, and Big Ten no longer get the special treatment they got last year. I personally doubt a single coach in those leagues is excited about the College Basketball Crown, but someone has allowed that charade to go on this long, and the NIT isn’t going to keep giving those leagues handouts. Bravo.
Good Conferences Will Be Rewarded (With More Exempt Bids)
The ACC and SEC have those two bids, and there will also be one exempt bid apiece reserved for every conference which finishes rated among the twelve best according to kenpom. In total, then, we’ll see sixteen exempt bids awarded based on conference. The ACC and SEC will receive three apiece if they’re among the top three conferences.
If kenpom’s preseason conference rankings don’t change (they will, but this is our best way to illustrate how this might play out), the exempt bid breakdown will go as follows:
- SEC: 3 bids
- Big 12: 1 bid
- Big Ten: 1 bid
- Big East: 1 bid
- ACC: 3 bids
- Mountain West: 1 bid
- Atlantic 10: 1 bid
- American: 1 bid
- WCC: 1 bid
- WAC: 1 bid
- Missouri Valley: 1 bid
- Conference USA: 1 bid
Again, kenpom’s conference rankings will change. But those are the top twelve leagues in Pomeroy’s preseason ratings.
Why are the Big 12, Big Ten, and Big East still on this list? Our impression is that those leagues’ teams will still be invited to the NIT, and that some might accept the invitation.
How will the team who receives the bid be determined? It’ll be the top-rated team not selected to the NCAA T*urnament, just as it was last year. One change, though: Last year, the NCAA used the NET rankings and invited the top non-NCAAT teams from the ACC, SEC, etc. based solely on NET. This year, instead of relying solely on NET, they’ll average NET, BPI, KPI, kenpom, BPI SOR, Torvik, and WAB, the seven metrics on the NCAA Team Sheets.
We at The Barking Crow are huge fans of this last change. We’re not anti-NET, but we like the idea of using an average. It makes outliers less impactful. Again, bravo.
A second thing we’re unclear about is what happens if a team declines a bid, or if an entire conference declines a bid. Last year, the NIT committee offered every Pac-12 team a spot in the NIT, because only one said yes. They’d promised the Pac-12 two bids, and they tried their darnedest to give the Pac-12 two bids. If Mississippi is in position for an SEC exempt bid and Chris Beard again says no, does the bid go to the next SEC team? If the whole Big East says no, does their exempt bid go to the 13th-rated conference, which is currently the Sun Belt? This part is unclear right now, but hopefully everyone just accepts their invitations and it isn’t an issue.
The NCAA does say that everyone who receives an exempt bid gets a chance to host in the first round. This means that if the MVC and Conference USA and those others do finish in the top twelve, their best non-NCAAT team will be guaranteed a home game. We love this part, and I’m guessing a lot of those who were frustrated with last year’s format changes will love it too. There will be a lot of games hosted by great mid-majors.
The Return of (Some of) the Automatic Bids
Why did the NCAA insist on calling all those conference-based bids “exempt” bids? Because for regular season champions in conferences ranked worse than twelfth, there’s still a chance at the same kind of automatic bid which existed between 2006 and 2023, with one caveat:
The team in question must have an average ranking (across those seven Team Sheet systems) of 125th or better.
This wouldn’t have gotten it done for Eastern Kentucky last year, but it’s possible it would have gotten Toledo into the tournament. I haven’t checked all seven systems, but I believe the Rockets entered Selection Sunday better than 125th in at least some of them.
Overall, then, we have 16 exempt bids, probably one or two automatic bids, and then as many at-large bids as is necessary, with those teams selected by the committee. Since we mentioned the committee: Welcome, Tubby Smith and two-time NIT champion Jeff Jones (won it as both a player and a coach). Two college basketball institutions unto themselves, and guys we’ve always heard others in this industry speak very highly of as people.
Experimental Rules!
I’m not sure if there’ll be other experimental rules, but if you’ve been frustrated by the quantity and duration of replay reviews in college hoops, take heart: In the 2025 NIT, the NCAA will use an experimental rule which allows coaches to appeal out of bounds calls within the final two minutes, rather than letting refs just review every single play where the ball goes out of bounds.
I’m excited about all the changes. But this one made me pump my fist in a Culver’s parking lot.
Note: This post has been edited to clarify information about the exempt bids.
