The NIT's regional concept may have saved the tournament. There is one teeny-weeny problem, though.
It is done privately and, unlike in other tournaments, continuously.
After every round, the NIT decides how to match the surviving schools, and where. Since the home court means something--in this tournament, home teams have won 24 of 28 games--the NIT is open to the charge that it sets up the winners and losers.
Of this year's four finalists, three--UCLA, Indiana and Louisville--played all three games at home. The fourth, Tennessee, played two at home.
Why, for example, didn't Fresno State (23-8), coming off two NIT sellouts, get the home date against UCLA (18-12), which had sold a total of 12,000 tickets for two games?