NIT vs. NCAA Tournament
Is there any way that going to the NIT is better than going to the NCAA tournament? The way I see it, going to the NIT could mean 2, 3, or even 4 additional games this season. Although it would be nice to keep a tourney streak going, I think it would be of benefit for next years team. There is a chance that Derrick Walton will be back before the end of this season, and those extra games would help him a lot.
With the way these freshman are progressing, I personally would take a couple extra games of the NIT over a one and done NCAA tourney appearance.
Discuss...
February 11th, 2015 at 12:41 PM ^
In terms of more experience, yes, we should take what we can get. But otherwise, even if we won the NIT, we would just be "the best team that didnt make the tournament".
February 11th, 2015 at 12:57 PM ^
February 11th, 2015 at 12:42 PM ^
next question.
/thread
February 11th, 2015 at 12:42 PM ^
February 11th, 2015 at 12:43 PM ^
February 11th, 2015 at 12:56 PM ^
We are going to CollegeInsiders.com tournament.
February 11th, 2015 at 12:42 PM ^
February 11th, 2015 at 12:43 PM ^
benefit to playing a few more games. But better to reach the tourney. You want to keep the skein. And who says we lose? Where there's a Beilein there's a way.
February 11th, 2015 at 12:44 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 11th, 2015 at 12:50 PM ^
This is an annual exercise in rationalization by fans of schools who aren't likely to make the tourney.
No, there aren't any circumstances in which it's better to be in the NIT than NCAAs. Case in point: Tommy Amaker was fired in large part because he never made the NCAA tournament in six years. And yet, he won the NIT in 2004. If he'd lost in the first round of the NCAAs in '04, that probably would have been better for his job security.
February 11th, 2015 at 12:47 PM ^
I never bought the arugement that it will give a young team X amount of extra games. They have already played nearly 40 games including Italy, preseason, post season tournament, etc that 4 more games won't have a huge impact.
February 11th, 2015 at 12:49 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 11th, 2015 at 12:53 PM ^
I really don't think a handful of games against NIT opponents (many of whom have mailed it in) really matters for the next season. Minnesota does not appear to be reaping the benefits of its NIT title from last year.
February 11th, 2015 at 12:47 PM ^
Famous Idaho Potato Bowl>NIT
February 11th, 2015 at 12:51 PM ^
NCAAT>NIT>Nothing
February 11th, 2015 at 4:08 PM ^
February 11th, 2015 at 12:52 PM ^
February 11th, 2015 at 12:53 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 11th, 2015 at 1:18 PM ^
Both seem real.
February 11th, 2015 at 12:54 PM ^
This discussion comes up every year among every bottom-of-the-bubble fanbase, without fail.
It always goes something like "should we like it better if we go to the NIT because it means a long tourney run instead of being one-and-done."
And it's always wrongheaded because there's no guarantee of making a long NIT run.
Given hindsight, it's possible to argue that it might be better to win the NIT than to go 0-1 in the big tourney. But we're not talking in hindsight. You get immeasurably more publicity for going to the NCAA than the NIT. Publicity aids recruiting. And it's not like every NIT game counts extra for measuring experience.
Besides, even given hindsight, I haven't seen Minnesota get a whole lot of benefit out of their championship NIT run last year.
February 11th, 2015 at 12:57 PM ^
...but then, I went to EMU.
February 11th, 2015 at 12:58 PM ^
1 NCAA tournament game is better for a program than 3 or 4 NIT games. Not close.
February 11th, 2015 at 12:59 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 11th, 2015 at 1:13 PM ^
February 11th, 2015 at 1:01 PM ^
Kentucky lost to Robert Morris in the first round of the NIT back in 2013 and look at them now. Gimme that blueprint
/s
February 11th, 2015 at 1:03 PM ^
Well, since they're not going to the NCAA tournament (unless they win the Big Ten Tournament), clearly going to the NIT is a good thing simply for the sake of playing more games and getting more practice. That said, no - it's always better to get to the real tournament.
February 11th, 2015 at 1:06 PM ^
In the last twenty years, only UConn has won the NCAA Tournament as less than a #4 seed. In other words, only the best 16 teams have a "realistic" chance of winning. Nobody higher than a #8 seed, or one of the best 32 teams, has ever won the tournament.
To me, if a team is not one of the top 32 teams in basketball, they are better off in the NIT, where they can play more games and have a chance to win. UConn notwithstanding, I'm not so sure that the NIT isn't a better option for anyone who isn't a #6 seed or better.
If a team gets the dreaded #7-10 seed, they usually get knocked off the first week because they have to play a #1 or #2 seed in the second game that week. The good news: if they win, they take over the draw position of a #1 or #2 seed.
It comes down to what is better for a program: the recruiting boost of making the NCAA Tournament or the experience gained in the NIT.
February 11th, 2015 at 1:14 PM ^
February 11th, 2015 at 1:25 PM ^
Your logic has a big hole. Boiled down:
-- Unless you're one of the top 16 teams, you have little to no chance of winning the championship. (I'll buy it.)
-- You can play more games in the NIT and therefore gain more experience.
But can't you gain experience by winning a couple games in the NCAA, and wouldn't that experience be way better, not having to make the tradeoff between publicity and experience? It's not a question of automatically losing vs. automatically winning.
The 9-12 seeds win their first game slightly over 40% of the time and win their second game about 43.5% of the time. 17.5% of 9-12 seeds have made the Sweet 16. Not terrible odds.
And worst-case scenario - absolute worst case - you miss out on four games. Four. It takes five to win the NIT and you're guaranteed one either way. Four games makes that much of a difference? No way. No way at all.
February 11th, 2015 at 1:08 PM ^
February 11th, 2015 at 1:11 PM ^
I think the more games Michigan plays, the better for the players (in terms of prep for next year.) I'd love to see them win a couple in the Big 10 Tourney, then go deep in the NIT. That could happen if Walton is back, Donnal and Doyle continue to develop, along with Rahkman and Dawkins, and the light finally goes on for Chatman. What's the point in going to the NCAA and winning a game at most, depending on how we're seeded?
EDIT: Obviously, your goal is the NCAA, and you play to win every game, always, period. But I think making it to the NIT is a worthy end to this season.
February 11th, 2015 at 2:50 PM ^
February 12th, 2015 at 5:51 AM ^
February 11th, 2015 at 1:13 PM ^
appearance over NIT all day long. It's better for recruiting and it could be a chance that Michigan can go to a surprising run to Sweet 16 appearance.
February 11th, 2015 at 1:39 PM ^
But what if they win out?
February 11th, 2015 at 1:39 PM ^
Really?? What's next, wondering if UM should adopt a new, fresher fight song?? Get off my lawn, his lawn, her lawn, their lawn.....
February 11th, 2015 at 1:40 PM ^
Its a lot like qualifying for the state meet if you are a wrestler. It pays HUGE dividends just to qualify and go on year just to get over being star struck by that environment. If a wrestler qualifies for states his sophmore year and goes 2 and out, he will almost certainly place if he goes again another year. Just getting that initial experience, understanding the setting, the timing of games, the atmoshperes, it is al SOOOOO valuable.
So I see what you are saying, I would rather go one and done this year for a couple reasons. First, all of our freshman need to be on the big stage, make the flights, do the press coverage, and stay in the hotels. This way next year we will be all business before, been there, not so shocked. You just cant duplicate what that exposure is worth.
February 11th, 2015 at 1:44 PM ^
The NCAA is much better but for this team playing 5 games in the NIT would be great for developing skills and team chemistry with us being so young.
February 11th, 2015 at 2:23 PM ^
Honestly, I don't blame people for thinking this and reasoning this, but even a 1st Round exit is so much more superior than even an NIT championship.
Not only does it keep your program relevant, but it also helps recruiting and let's your players experience the top level. As we have seen for teams like Baylor, Iowa, and Minnesota, making the NIT does not breed success.
February 11th, 2015 at 4:11 PM ^
No one cares how many times U hit Lena Dunham.
February 11th, 2015 at 6:01 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 11th, 2015 at 5:18 PM ^
The NCAA tournament is better, more presitigous, and builds a bigger brand the NIT and has since 1969. However, there is a benefit for young teams like Michigan who will gain more experience playing more games in the NIT. Hopefully, we win the NIT and build for a deep NCAA tournament next year.