What would be better for this team: Short NCAA run or deep NIT?
- Thread starter bonedaddy401
- Start date
Although the chances of making the NCAA's this year are slim to none, we need as many appearances in the Big Dance as we can get, if for no other reason the more times you get there the more opportunities you give yourself of making a deep run there. The experience of a short NCAA run is always better than a deep NIT run because you're actually participating in the real thing and getting real experience, something the NIT can't imitate.</p>
For a young team like ours? Deep NIT for the experience. Gotta look towards the future. But, for an older team I would say short NCAA because at least they had a chance.
be a lack of post presence in 2009-2010. Regardless of how we do this year, be it NCAA or NIT, anyone who thinks Jarvis Vanardo will be in Starkville this time next year is a fool. In other words, the NIT will help develop our guards, which should be our strength next year, but much of that will go for naught because we will have no inside presence next year.
And for the record, I think this team could (COULD) get hot enough in any 2-3 game stretch to play with - and maybe beat - most teams in the country, no matter whether it's in the NIT or the NCAA. As always, it would depend on the draw, but this year I'd take my chances.
If the team that played at Rupp shows up, I wouldn't be scared for them to play almost anybody. OR if the team that played UM or Auburn shows up, we'll get beat early in the NIT anyway.
If the team that played at Rupp shows up, I wouldn't be scared for them to play almost anybody. OR if the team that played UM or Auburn shows up, we'll get beat early in the NIT anyway.
.....that tournament and I've yet to see it pay dividends. They won it 2005, and in 2006 they were right back there to win it all again. So what, everyone else will be a year older and more experienced the following year too.
I'll take the early NCAA exit any day, Getting there means you're on the right track.
I'll take the early NCAA exit any day, Getting there means you're on the right track.
You play home games during the NIT unless you make the NIT FF. There are no home games during the NCAA Tourney.
Playing in the SEC Tourney prepares a young team better experience-wise for the NCAA Tourney than going to the NIT. You are always better off making the NCAA Tourney than you are going to the NIT.
The NIT for a BCS conference team is not a successful season and a waste of time
Playing in the SEC Tourney prepares a young team better experience-wise for the NCAA Tourney than going to the NIT. You are always better off making the NCAA Tourney than you are going to the NIT.
The NIT for a BCS conference team is not a successful season and a waste of time
but that line of thinking is useless. Making the NCAA Tourney is ALWAYS, I repeat, ALWAYS better than not making it. Screw the NIT and any of these other post-season tourneys that don't decide diddly-****. I can't tell you who won the NIT last year, but I can tell you several teams that got eliminated on the first day of the NCAA Tourney. Getting our feet wet and at least knowing what it's like to be a tourney team and have that kind of exposure will be better than making it to MSG any day. The NCAA Tournament is unlike anything we can experience in the regular season or the NIT. Having that under our belt would greatly increase our chances of making a tourney run next year, simply because being there wouldn't be a new situation to deal with. The confidence of winning the NIT will not carry over into the next season as much as simply making the Big Dance will, so getting in and going one and done is better than winning the NIT. We can fluff it up all we want if we do make an NIT run, and we should have a good team next year regardless, but the answer is simple... ain't nothin like the real thing.
edited to add:
Just ask yourself this.. Would you rather masturbate for two hours or blow a wad in your pants while dry humping? The latter may not be what you were going for, but it'll at least contribute to lasting longer next time.
edited to add:
Just ask yourself this.. Would you rather masturbate for two hours or blow a wad in your pants while dry humping? The latter may not be what you were going for, but it'll at least contribute to lasting longer next time.
64 teams is enough to pick to play in post season. Just maybe your team might play a little harder & get those 2 or 3 more needed wins to make the NCAA tourney if the damn NIT did not exist.I could give a rats *** about the NIT, but, that's just my opinion.
As long as the field is small. I'm all about a college football playoff, but only if the NCAA keeps the max at 8 teams, and preferably just 4. And I do think that's what will happen if a playoff is set up. There's no reason to take away the value of the regular season, and I don't think that'd happen in a plus-one system, which can still use the bowls as part of the process without changing much at all. Yes, there will be tons of arguments on how to determine the teams, etc... But I'd rather argue about the fourth and fifth place team each year than the second and third. It'd still generate controversy, but I don't think it'd generate long term bitterness that certain schools have a right to express, like Auburn and Southern Cal have in recent years in our current system.
As for the other teams, and more specifically with your statement, the bowl season would be the exact same. Ole Miss fans aren't complaining about the Cotton Bowl because they didn't get picked for the Sugar Bowl or any other bowl that's considered better. And if a playoff system had been in place, they still would've packed that stadium full. A bowl game and an NIT game have nothing in common. A bowl is an event.. a one-time deal win or lose. It's a championship in itself. You can't say that at all about a non-NCAA post-season basketball game.
As for the other teams, and more specifically with your statement, the bowl season would be the exact same. Ole Miss fans aren't complaining about the Cotton Bowl because they didn't get picked for the Sugar Bowl or any other bowl that's considered better. And if a playoff system had been in place, they still would've packed that stadium full. A bowl game and an NIT game have nothing in common. A bowl is an event.. a one-time deal win or lose. It's a championship in itself. You can't say that at all about a non-NCAA post-season basketball game.
The only people that watch the NIT are the fans that have schools involved in it.
Let me put it this way, if we won the NIT, I would not feel better about our team than if they made a run in the Tourney.
Let me put it this way, if we won the NIT, I would not feel better about our team than if they made a run in the Tourney.
I admit, i have yet to read through this thread. However, how in the hell can you rightfully justify picking a run in the NIT over the experience and the excitement of playing in the actual NCAA Tournament. Is it beneficial? Obviously. Is it better than the NCAA? Not even in the same ball park. What do some of you think? That these kids actually believe that winning 3 games in the NIT is better than playing in the real NCAAT*, gaining real NCAAT experience, and perhaps fulfilling the dream of becoming that "Next Hero" in the round of 64?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span> All of the money generated from the NIT could not buy the memories and experiences those players would earn that week. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The NIT is a half assed tournament, played by half-assed decent teams, to a half-assed television market.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span> Its like awarding a medal to the apparent 66th best team in the country.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> And before i hear the playing in a tournament argument, realize....that only in 3 or 4 weeks, our basketball team will be involved in a do or die tournament on a neutral court.....what the NIT lacks.
*-National Collegiate Athletic Association Tournament aka: March Madness (for the nit voters)</span></p>
*-National Collegiate Athletic Association Tournament aka: March Madness (for the nit voters)</span></p>
The NCAA is ALWAYS better, even for a young team trying to gain experience. Unless you make the semifinals of the NIT, you really aren't competing in a tournament atmosphere. You're just playing extra home or road games. The only thing with the NIT that's comparable to an NCAA experience is the semifinals and finals in MSG, and even then it isn't as good, because the crowds aren't quite the same.
One and done in the NCAA tourney is much better for a young team than winning 3 or 4 games in the NIT. That's honestly what I was hoping we'd be able to do this year before all the injuries hit. I was hoping we'd sneak in the tourney and get our brains beat in so that we could have that experience to draw from next year when we should have a team that's good enough to have a chance at a tourney run.
Some of you might make the argument that your 2007 NIT run helped your 2008 team, but I just don't see it. You won three straight home games against mediocre competition. That's no different than non-conference play. And the neutral site experience you gain in the semifinals isn't a whole lot different than the early season tournaments you play every year. It means just as much (basically nothing), and it's a neutral site. Nothing prepares you for future NCAA runs like getting there and at least getting a chance to go through the motions to know what to expect the next time you show up.
One and done in the NCAA tourney is much better for a young team than winning 3 or 4 games in the NIT. That's honestly what I was hoping we'd be able to do this year before all the injuries hit. I was hoping we'd sneak in the tourney and get our brains beat in so that we could have that experience to draw from next year when we should have a team that's good enough to have a chance at a tourney run.
Some of you might make the argument that your 2007 NIT run helped your 2008 team, but I just don't see it. You won three straight home games against mediocre competition. That's no different than non-conference play. And the neutral site experience you gain in the semifinals isn't a whole lot different than the early season tournaments you play every year. It means just as much (basically nothing), and it's a neutral site. Nothing prepares you for future NCAA runs like getting there and at least getting a chance to go through the motions to know what to expect the next time you show up.
I would rather get our asses handed to us in the first round of the NCAA than make it to the finals of a NIT game that nobody cares about. If you make it to the NCAA you get much more exposure, media wise, than you would the NIT. Not to mention that the NIT, like someone post earlier, is a tournament for 65th place.
no recruit gives a **** about a team doing well in the NIT. They'd rather have a shot in the NCAAs