Michigan to "consider the CBI"?

Submitted by jonny_GoBlue on

First of all, let me just say that this will be a moot point after the Wolverines win the Big Ten Tournament setting up the most magical Cinderella run in NCAA Tourney history.

That said, this is from Beilein on the Michigan Insider (WTKA) this morning, a slightly more specific take on the CBI than what he provided the press after the loss in East Lansing on Sunday...

"I don't know a lot about the CBI... based on the number of games we'd played and our chances that the NIT and NCAA were the best options and then we'd consider the CBI in the future."

I take this to mean that they will be open to playing in the CBI if they aren't able to earn an NIT or NCAA bid. The general consensus from the community is that this would be a good thing for the team, if for no other reason than to get in some more practices.

Here's the podcast... the comment is at the 5:30 mark.
http://www.wtka.com/index.php?fuseaction=home.podcasts_sel&id=4014

Bando Calrissian

March 11th, 2010 at 12:05 AM ^

I have read elsewhere that the CBI tends to be a pretty substantial risk financially for a school that hosts one of their "regionals." The stakes are high that your team loses their first game, and you're stuck trying to sell tickets for second-rate tournament games between two out-of-market schools. Stanford supposedly lost a boatload this way not so long ago.

Given that, if Michigan were offered the chance to host at Crisler, is it worth the risk?

jonny_GoBlue

March 11th, 2010 at 12:19 AM ^

I'm not so sure that that's how it works. According to the tournament website all games are played at the arena of the higher seeded team. There also appears to be several days in between games, very similar to the NIT.

One cool aspect of this tournament is the best-of-3 championship, with the higher seeded team given two home games.

http://www.gazellegroup.com/events/cbi/index_main.htm

Bobby Digital

March 11th, 2010 at 12:37 AM ^

In addition to extra practice, turning down a tournament for not-so-good teams when we are, in fact, a not-so-good team just looks arrogant. Like Notre Dame skipping bowls. The CBI is not beneath Michigan - not this year's team at least.

Keith

March 11th, 2010 at 12:48 AM ^

The question - would our program be better in the long-run if Manny Harris were to go pro now rather than returning for a senior year?

Although I'm confident that this topic has been discussed elsewhere, my cursory search has resulted in finding discussions about whether Manny staying or leaving is good for Manny, not whether it's good for the program.

It could also be completely irrelevant, as I'm guessing that his pro prospects have diminished significantly over the course of the Big Ten season.

This isn't intended to reflect negatively on Harris at all - I have been a fan of his throughout his career and I hope to be able to cheer for him in the NBA as well.

But, would we have more long-term success without Manny next year?

The negatives:
-it would no doubt result in a less-talented team in '10-'11.
-we wouldn't have any seniors on the team, which could easily translate to a lack of leadership.
-losing our best two players from this year's underachieving team could potentially result in a disastrous '10-'11.

The positives:
-we wouldn't have any seniors on the team. Every minute of playing time would go to players who would be expected to return in '11-'12.
-it has been suggested that part of the problem with our current team is a lack of leadership. Without a natural, senior leader on the team, it would force younger players (Novak, Morris, etc.) to step up and take a leadership role, which could only benefit our team in '11-'12.
-every player on the team would be Beilien-recruited and "system guys".

I tend to believe that we would be better off in the long-run without Manny on the team next year. Again, this isn't intended as any offense to him - I simply think the potential positives outweigh the negatives. Also, if we were to have another .500 year next year, I would much rather have it be as part of a process that is gearing up towards great success in '11-'12 than have a continuation of the current year.

In short, it would be a short-term sacrifice for long-term gain.

Thoughts? Am I underestimating the impact his loss of talent would have on the team?

UMfan21

March 11th, 2010 at 2:37 AM ^

Trey Zeigler was asked if he'd rather play alongside Manny, or see Manny graduate in order to get that playing time and be the featured guy. Trey said he'd rather Manny stuck around. That is enough reason to hope Manny returns in my opinion.

Manny is not your prototypical Beilein guy and I admit sometimes I've wondered what would happen if he left this year. I think it's in his best interest and UofM's for him to stay. Can you imagine next year with the same basic team, except having Morgan, McLimans, Smotz, Hardaway and hopefully Zeigler and Horford to replace Sims? That's a solid, young core.

Keith

March 11th, 2010 at 11:02 AM ^

Agreed on that comment, which is actually part of the reason why I am thinking that the loss of Manny wouldn't be too terrible - I think it would benefit us the following year, especially since we are certainly not lacking at the SG/SF position (Novak, Douglass, Lucas-Perry, Hardaway, hopefully Zeigler).

As far as your comment on Zeigler is concerned, I think that his thoughts on the matter should be about 100th on my list of supporting reasons for this topic. If he was a commit or perhaps the best player in the 2010 class, I would be closer to agreeing with you. But a consensus four-star player that we have maybe a 25% chance of nabbing doesn't matter a whole lot to me in this discussion, especially since it would be shocking if his final decision came down to whether Manny stays or goes.

Tim

March 11th, 2010 at 8:59 AM ^

Beilein has specifically said that this year's team is not interested in the CBI. "In the future" pretty clearly indicates future seasons in this instance.

jonny_GoBlue

March 11th, 2010 at 9:55 AM ^

Why would they consider the CBI next year but not this year?

To me it just sounds like coach-speak... we're still mathematically capable of making the NCAA/NIT, therefore we're not considering other tournaments. In the future, we may be officially out of those tournaments and at that time we will begin considering the CBI. To say they are already considering the CBI would indicate to the players a lack of confidence from the coaches.

Agree to disagree, but I hope I'm right. I also hope a miracle happens at the Big Ten Tourney and we don't have to find out.

Wolverine In Exile

March 11th, 2010 at 11:31 AM ^

Check out Chengalis's article from the DetNews today on the Beilein press conference. She makes it pretty clear that U of M will not go to the CBI this year ("The university made a decision that we were going to try to qualify for the NCAA or the NIT") and that Beilein really didn't consider it, but probably will reconsider it and talk to the higher ups about it for next year. Sounds like the U's brass feels that if we can't qualify as one of the Top 100 teams in Div I (NCAA + NIT), then we probably shouldn't be playing post season bball.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20100311/OPINION03/3110337/-It-s-a-brand…

Tater

March 11th, 2010 at 9:19 AM ^

I'm sure there are plenty of players in college basketball whose departures may be considered "addition by subtraction." Manny, however, is not one of them. Not only do I hope Manny comes back for his senior year, but I hope he plays himself back into the first round and subsequently plays Michigan back into the tournament.

Manny Harris could have gone almost anywhere and he chose to help try to restore the University of Michigan program. He deserves gratitude from all UM fans. And he deserves to be welcomed back with open arms by said fans. In other words:

There is absolutely no way that Manny's departure would help the University of Michigan basketball team.

MGlobules

March 11th, 2010 at 11:14 AM ^

sorta with him after considering. There are lots of kinds of leaders, and I think Manny leads much more than people recognize--one reason why his mid-season outburst was so upsetting to the team. (He's kind of one of those quiet fortitude guys.) And I think that w. such a young team there will be plenty enough p.t. for guys learning the ropes.

I also think that this team could be bad enough w.o. him next year. If they go out and stink up the league completely, this year's wounded and broken egos will be as nothing, do you hear me as nothing. . .

As Dylan has showed over at UMhoops, Manny's play has been darned close to last year's until the last few games, when teams decided there were only two people to guard on the M team.

The question for HIM (getting back to that) is whether he gets a better chance to shine next year. I'm not sure that's the case. He can bulk up more, work on his pull-up jumper, driving on both sides of the hoop. . .

Keith

March 11th, 2010 at 12:26 PM ^

I have no problem with reasonable disagreement (such as your post) - his post simply looked like a knee-jerk reaction. His post implies that I was disrespectful to Manny Harris, that I was suggesting that next year's team would be better due to "addition by subtraction", and generally ignores my whole argument that it could be better for the team in the long-term - at no point do I say that next year's team would improve if Manny were not to return.

In short, his post was a response to my title, not a response to any substantive point in my initial argument.

funkywolve

March 11th, 2010 at 12:04 PM ^

Not sure how the CBI works, but there was a blurb in the Denver paper about Colorado not being interested in the CBI. Sounds like the cost is prohibitive for the Buffs. Not sure if that might be UM's reasoning too.

"The eighth-seeded Buffaloes (15-16) needed a first-round victory to be assured of finishing with a .500 record, a requirement for the National Invitation Tournament. CU is not expected to seek a spot in the College Basketball Invitational (CBI), which requires a $60,000 guarantee from its participants."

Tacopants

March 11th, 2010 at 6:24 PM ^

$60,000 vs. extra practice time doesn't seem like too bad of a trade. I'm sure its not $60k of straight up cash, its probably 60k of guaranteed ticket/concession sales, which isn't terribly bad (2400 seats at $25 per).

We're also talking about Colorado, who apparently cant afford to do anything with their athletic department thanks to Dan Hawkins.