Stands say NIT run > 1 and done NCAA appearances

[Coach34]

https://collegebasketball.ap.org/delgazette/article/w-kentucky-coach-nit-semis-better-1-and-out-ncaas

discuss

[StarkVegasSteve]

Obviously from a program perspective you always prefer the NCAA's one and done or not. I feel like though from a team perspective making deep run in the NIT might be better for a young team just to be able to gain some valuable postseason experience

[Bulldog1]

I think that is utterly stupid. Only way that is remotely true is for a young team like ours this year, and I would’ve preferred making the NCAA tournament obviously.

[Liverpooldawg]

One and done is better than a NIT championship.

[Bulldog1]

One and done is better than a NIT championship.

I actually agree with you on this.

[smootness]

https://collegebasketball.ap.org/delgazette/article/w-kentucky-coach-nit-semis-better-1-and-out-ncaas

discuss

I think that is a natural response from a coach who just made an NIT run and hasn't made the NCAAT yet at his current school.

[dawgs]

One and done is better than a NIT championship.

Yep.

That’s not to say a NIT run can’t have huge benefits for a young team heading into the following season, but you are always playing for a NCAA tournament spot.

[TXDawg]

I think it depends on the team and where you are as a program. If you're Kentucky or Duke (perennial powerhouse), an NCAA appearance is better than an NIT championship. However, for OUR team THIS year (young, no post-season experience for anyone on the roster, etc), a deep run in the NIT and all the things that come with it (post-season experience, extra practices, travelling and playing the tournament format, etc) is better than going one-and-done in the NCAA.

We may not like it as fans, but the TEAM benefits more.

[smootness]

I don't even know why it's ever even a discussion. The choice is never between making a deep run in one vs. going out early in the other. That's dumb. The choice should be simply between making one or the other, and the obvious choice is the NCAAT. After that, your results are up to you.

And if you're able to make a deep run in the NIT vs. going out game 1 in the NCAAT, then I think that's your answer right there.

Stans is basically saying, we wouldn't have been able to win a game in the NCAAT...therefore, winning games in the NIT is clearly better. Which is dumb, because the fact that you're able to win games in the NIT when you can't in the NCAAT answers the question of which is better. But he's also a coach whose job and salary is dependent on results, so of course he's going to claim this is better.

[drunkernhelldawg]

For our team, I think the run was better than a one and done would have been. Hell, the NIT has brought our program up toward its previous levels. One and done would have felt like more of the same. Positiviity is greater than negativity. We got a lot of positivity from the NIT.; Not to mention the fun of playing with the experimental rules.

[MadDawg]

One and done is better than a NIT championship.

Because perception trumps reality? Because in reality, there are teams that make the NIT that are better than the lower seeds in the NCAAT.

I say there is no one-size-fits-all answer.

[PassInterference]

I think that is utterly stupid. Only way that is remotely true is for a young team like ours this year, and I would’ve preferred making the NCAA tournament obviously.



Utterly stupid except for when it isn?t. Cool story bro.

[basedog]

I heard Howland talk about his, some of y'all aren't on the right page but again some know way more than Howland and his team****

[PassInterference]

Which is more fun for you, the fan?

I say the NIT Final Four > 1 & done in the NCAAs. More games, more post season wins, more TV exposure.

[drunkernhelldawg]

Which is more fun for you, the fan?

I say the NIT Final Four > 1 & done in the NCAAs. More games, more post season wins, more TV exposure.

I may have been the only one watching, but I watched four game with inexplicable pleasure, or as the last game prove, the little death.

[PassInterference]

I hope you enjoyed all of our NIT victories leading up to that.

[shannondawg]

Its called making the best of a situation you are in.

I'm sure it made his team feel better, and thats what counts. Not to appease the message boards.

[Bulldog1]

Which is more fun for you, the fan?

I say the NIT Final Four > 1 & done in the NCAAs. More games, more post season wins, more TV exposure.

For me, NIT final four, just because I get to watch 3 or 4 extra games.

[Bulldog1]

Utterly stupid except for when it isn?t. Cool story bro.

It’s better on some accounts, but not all.

[Cooterpoot]

How many big recruits you ever hear say "I'm going to (school) because I want to win in the NIT"? It's beneficial to a young team to get the extra games but it's not something to be happy about.

[Tbonewannabe]

NIT = Independence Bowl, NCAA = Gator Bowl or better. You always want to go to the better bowl or in this case the NCAAs. Winning the Independence bowl can give your team momentum for the next year just like the NIT. At the end of the day, extra practice as a team is always better especially for a young team. For our team this year, getting almost 2 extra weeks practice is probably better than losing in the first round because it will benefit us next year.

[PassInterference]

Beating Louisville in the TaxSlayer Bowl, or losing to Rice in the Gator Bowl?

[AROB44]

I heard Howland talk about his, some of y'all aren't on the right page but again some know way more than Howland and his team****

+1000. You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to basedog again.

[Matty Dispatch]

Beating Louisville in the TaxSlayer Bowl, or losing to Rice in the Gator Bowl?

that's the same bowl game

[bulldawg28]

Stans is correct

[sleepy dawg]

Because perception trumps reality? Because in reality, there are teams that make the NIT that are better than the lower seeds in the NCAAT.

I say there is no one-size-fits-all answer.

This is my stance too. There isn't a right answer. Just b/c you made the NCAA tournament doesn't mean you were better than, or had a better season than an NIT team. It comes down to automatic qualifiers and the committee. You can't help it if you're a bubble team and the committee is dumb as f*ck. If the football playoff committee did the same thing the basketball committee is doing now, Ole Miss would've been in the playoffs those years they beat Bama and Florida b/c they'd have more quadrant 1 wins than most teams. It wouldn't matter that the f*cked up royally losing to sh*t teams.

Going to the NCAA tournament might be more prestigious, but that in and of itself does not equal "better"... The answer is, it depends.

[smootness]

This is my stance too. There isn't a right answer. Just b/c you made the NCAA tournament doesn't mean you were better than, or had a better season than an NIT team. It comes down to automatic qualifiers and the committee. You can't help it if you're a bubble team and the committee is dumb as f*ck. If the football playoff committee did the same thing the basketball committee is doing now, Ole Miss would've been in the playoffs those years they beat Bama and Florida b/c they'd have more quadrant 1 wins than most teams. It wouldn't matter that the f*cked up royally losing to sh*t teams.

Going to the NCAA tournament might be more prestigious, but that in and of itself does not equal "better"... The answer is, it depends.

No, making the NCAA Tournament is always, always better than making the NIT.

[Dawg61]

How many big recruits you ever hear say "I'm going to (school) because I want to win in the NIT"? It's beneficial to a young team to get the extra games but it's not something to be happy about.

Good job Cooter you didn't troll this time. The board thanks you. Have some rep.

[sleepy dawg]

No, making the NCAA Tournament is always, always better than making the NIT.

Could you maybe add some points as to why its so cut and dry for you and why there could not possibly be a scenario where this is not the case?

For me it again comes down to the philosophical stance of what's best for you isn't always what's best for me.

I know this is kind of apples to oranges comparison, but for me its the same mindset.... in football, if a player is offered scholarship by Bama but knows he will ride the bench vs. being a starter for USM, what should he do? Is it always better to play for Bama b/c they're more prestigious? Again, there isn't a right or wrong answer. It depends. Should he go to bama b/c its a better and more prestigious program and might have a chance to be on a team that will win a Championship, or should he go to the school he can start at right away knowing he won't be playing for a championship? Would you rather sit for a star program or would you rather play for a mediocre one?

When it comes to basketball, I'd rather play in a less meaningful tournament that I have a chance to win than one I would be sent home early in because I was clearly outmatched.

[Dawg-gone-dawgs]

It is better. This year this team came together and played the best they have all year in the NIT(aside from the last game). That experience will carry on to next season. If they made the Dance and lost first game, we wouldn't have seen them play the best they have all year and no momentum going into next season.

[Dawgface]

Stans is incorrect.

[Johnson85]

Nobody is even reading what Stansbury actually said. He talked about a sales pitch to his players. The fair reading to me seems to be that winning and going deep in the NIT is more fun/better experience for the players than losing the first round of the NCAA.

Obviously getting an at large NCAA bid is a more successful season than going to the NIT. But it's not clear to me that as a player, playing and losing one NCAA game is more enjoyable than winning three games and then playing in Madison Square Garden. You might would rather have the NCAA loss as you look back on your career to say you were there. But I'm not sure the players who lose in the first round have a much better experience as far as enjoyment than the players who get three more games (in what for most of them will be the highest level of ball they play) and also get a game in Madison Square Garden, which I think still has some cachet to be able to say you've played there.

[drunkernhelldawg]

Nobody is even reading what Stansbury actually said. He talked about a sales pitch to his players. The fair reading to me seems to be that winning and going deep in the NIT is more fun/better experience for the players than losing the first round of the NCAA.

Obviously getting an at large NCAA bid is a more successful season than going to the NIT. But it's not clear to me that as a player, playing and losing one NCAA game is more enjoyable than winning three games and then playing in Madison Square Garden. You might would rather have the NCAA loss as you look back on your career to say you were there. But I'm not sure the players who lose in the first round have a much better experience as far as enjoyment than the players who get three more games (in what for most of them will be the highest level of ball they play) and also get a game in Madison Square Garden, which I think still has some cachet to be able to say you've played there.

I agree. Thanks for the reminder that I hadn't read the article. While it's not earth shattering, I'm glad I gave it a look. I also like the summary it provides on each team's path to the NIT Final Four.