Who’s Still Willing To Play In the CBI?

The College Basketball Invitational (CBI) emerged in 2008 following the NCAA’s acquisition of the NIT, which led to a reduction in bids from 40 to 32 and the introduction of autobids. This adjustment left a gap for approximately 10 to 12 NIT-caliber teams accustomed to participating in the tournament, prompting the inception of the CBI.

In its early years, the CBI boasted a robust lineup of teams, comprising both power conference contenders such as Virginia, Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Texas, Purdue, and Pitt, and top mid-major programs like Creighton, Davidson, VCU, and Butler. Victories in the inaugural editions of the tournament were generally viewed with modest esteem, with winning teams often leveraging their success to secure berths in subsequent NIT or NCAA tournaments. For coaches of young teams, the CBI provided a valuable opportunity for additional games, practice, and exposure on television. It was not uncommon to witness renowned coaches like Brad Stevens of Butler, fresh off back-to-back National Titles, or Shaka Smart, who led his team to a CBI victory before embarking on a Final Four run the following season, participating in the competition. Indeed, such occurrences were not out of the ordinary.

Presently, the competitive landscape of the CBI tends to feature teams ranked around the 250th mark, marking a shift from the caliber of teams seen in its earlier iterations.

The Downfall

The trajectory of the College Basketball Invitational (CBI) towards a diminished status was perhaps inevitable, particularly in light of contemporary dynamics such as the proliferation of the transfer portal and the volatility of team rosters on a yearly basis. In the current landscape, the allure of cultivating a team and gaining additional practice through tournament participation has significantly waned. Instead, it has transformed into more of a burden, especially with players increasingly focused on transitioning to their next collegiate destination via transfers. Many players are hesitant to risk injury for an event that holds diminished significance in today’s collegiate basketball landscape.

Moreover, the CBI’s “pay to play” model, coupled with its relatively high cost compared to the perceived value of the competition, further underscores its declining appeal. What was once seen as a valuable opportunity for teams to gain additional experience and exposure has now become a less enticing prospect for many programs.

It’s worth noting that the rankings utilized vary; while KenPom rankings, which encompass postseason performance, are often referenced, the selection committee at the time often favored the Ratings Percentage Index (RPI) in its decision-making process, adding another layer of complexity to the evaluation of teams and their postseason prospects.

The decline seems to have started around 2013.

CIT

Shortly after the CBI’s inception in 2009, CollegeInsiderTournament.com emerged on the collegiate basketball scene, positioning itself as more inclined towards mid-major teams and providing an opportunity to extend the season at a considerably lower reported cost. This alternative appealed to several quality mid and low-major teams, who increasingly favored these options. At the higher end of the spectrum, teams boasting strong RPIs diverted attention and participation from the CBI, consequently diluting the pool of high-RPI teams that traditionally participated in it. This division diminished the prestige of both tournaments. Teams like Mercer, for instance, which clinched victory in the CIT and subsequently upset Duke in the NCAA tournament the following season, opted for participation in the CIT over the CBI. Despite its longevity until 2019, the damage inflicted upon the CBI was already apparent.

Others

The Vegas 16 emerged as a new tournament venture for a single season in 2016, further fragmenting the collegiate basketball landscape at a juncture when both the CBI and CIT faced challenges. Although the organizers initially aimed for a 16-team format, they ultimately could only muster eight teams to compete. Nonetheless, the participating teams showcased a surprising level of quality. Additionally, in 2022, following the disruptions caused by the pandemic, The Basketball Classic underwent a rebranding and operated for a single season as a revamped iteration of the CIT.

The Best Teams

There were likely a few teams that were stronger in the field over the years but this gives you an idea of the best team, and finalist outside of the NCAA or NIT.

It’s a shame the CBI and CIT couldn’t compete in one tournament rather than diluting the fields.

2024

Today, there is no need to worry about competition, as the College Basketball Invitational (CBI) stands as the sole contender in the non NCAA/NIT postseason landscape. However, it currently finds itself at a nadir. The allure of both the CBI and the CIT appeared to diminish around the years 2013 or 2014, leading to a noticeable decline in the quality of participating teams. In examining the institutions that have received bids to the four postseason tournaments and the frequency of their acceptances, we aim to glean insights into potential participants in future editions. Hopefully the CBI can rebound and gain better standing moving foward, but with another potential Vegas tournament in talks catering to the P5 this may hurt the NIT. If that doesn’t happen there is a place for a strong CBI, especially after the NIT ended their autobids this season.

Over the past decade, certain schools have secured multiple bids to non-NCAA/NIT postseason tournaments in the CBI, CIT, Vegas 16 or Basketball Classic giving us a window on who is most likely to play in the CBI.

There have been a few MWC, American, A10, and WCC schools play in the non-NCAA/NIT postseason tournaments but only West Virginia, DePaul, Colorado, and Oregon State have played from the Power 6 conferences the last decade. It’s a bit of a shame considering there are 360 teams and only 100 get bids to the NCAA or NIT. Several of those are autobid and as good as some past CBI champions. We would like to see a strong CBI remain for the NIT snubs.